Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN RHODESIA

European Population

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the number of the resident European population in Northern Rhodesia on the 31st December, 1940, and the 31st December, 1950, or nearest convenient date, respectively.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Dugdale): The total European population in Northern Rhodesia, including visitors, was estimated to have been 14,300 at mid-year, 1940, and 36,000 at mid-year, 1950. The resident population is slightly less than the total population, but precise estimates are not available.

Relationship (Conference)

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the discussions between officials representing Northern and Southern Rhodesia on the subject of the future relationship between those two countries have now been completed.

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. The conference, which concerned the question of the closer association of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, was concluded on 31st March. The members are submitting a joint report to their Governments.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the fullest possible publicity to this report in view of the extreme importance of the situation, both from the point of view of the natural apprehension of the African populations owing to events

south of the Limpopo, and the demand, which has never yet been refused by this House, of Britons overseas to have a reasonable measure of self-government?

Mr. Dugdale: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this is a report of officials to their governments, and that until it has been seen by all the governments concerned I cannot give any guarantee of publication.

Mr. Driberg: While agreeing with some of what the noble Lord said in his supplementary, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will give an assurance that there will not be any major constitutional changes until the interests and the suffrage of the African people are completely safeguarded?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. I will certainly give that assurance.

Earl Winterton: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply to this Question—which is causing the most intense interest and is a matter of Imperial concern which goes far beyond even the interests of this House and affects the Commonwealth—that if the Government do not like the report they will not publish it?

Mr. Dugdale: I want to make quite clear that this is a report of officials of a number of governments, and that I cannot say without consultation with those governments whether they, as well as we, will agree to publication. If all agree to publication, no doubt the report will be published.

Mr. Harrison: Can my hon. Friend say if the report which has been submitted to these three governments was unanimous?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can one government veto the publication of the report?

Mr. Dugdale: I should not think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA (TOBACCO INDUSTRY)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to further his declared policy of


giving every possible encouragement to the tobacco-growing and cigar-manufacturing industry in Jamaica.

Mr. Dugdale: The furtherance of local industries in the Colonies is primarily a matter for the colonial governments concerned, though my Department naturally encourages colonial development in every possible way.

Mr. Dodds: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that any agreement recently entered into or contemplated will in no way be likely to increase the estimate of unemployed in Jamaica? Surely my hon. Friend has heard that there are unemployed there, and that the less work there the more unemployed there will be.

Mr. Dugdale: That is a purely hypothetical question. I agree as to the seriousness of the unemployment situation. I cannot say whether any agreement will or will not have any particular effect on the unemployment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not a fact that there is now quite considerable unemployment in the tobacco industry in the West Indian Islands? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that while preference used to be 25 per cent. in the United Kingdom market it is now 3 per cent., and are we now free to increase that if we want to do so?

Mr. Dugdale: The question of preference should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With great respect, the Minister has a large measure of responsibility for the West Indian Colonies. Is it not a fact that however much, constitutionally, it rests with someone else to answer this detailed question, the fact that we are now precluded from giving greater preference is a matter which ought seriously to disturb the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Dugdale: We are seriously concerned about it and we do take it into consideration, but the actual answering of that particular question, and the responsibility for it, is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Sorensen: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the apprehensions of the Jamaican cigar manufacturers

about the rivalry of the Cuban cigar manufacturers is unfounded?

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBA (TRADE NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consultations took place with colonial governments before His Majesty's Government entered into negotiations with the Cuban Government with regard to the purchase of sugar, tobacco or grapefruit.

Mr. Dugdale: There was no such prior consultation, because no one could foretell exactly what proposals might be brought forward in the course of trade negotiations covering a wide field. Discussions are still continuing, but His Majesty's Government have the interests of Commonwealth producers very much in mind.

Mr. Smithers: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the colonial Governments were not consulted because the Colonial Office did not think it necessary to consult them, or was it because the Colonial Office did not know the negotiations were going on and, therefore, could not consult?

Mr. Dugdale: The reason was the reason I have given in my reply.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance to the House that the Colonial Office were told by the President of the Board of Trade that negotiations with Cuba were imminent and would involve a new sugar contract? If so, what was the reply given by his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. I think that all these matters will come out when my right hon. Friend makes his statement on the negotiations.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: But does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that while Porto Rico, Haiti and other independent countries were represented at Torquay, the only representation of the British West Indian Colonies was through his right hon. Friend? Does this not make it all the more incumbent to protect their interests before negotiations start, and not afterwards?

Mr. Dugdale: I would remind the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend is a member of the Cabinet and that the Government act as one in these matters.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a large supply of sugar, and off the ration if possible, is the chief consideration?

Mr. Michael Foot: To meet the very intense desire of the West Indies for consultation in these matters, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of sending out a delegation from his Department, or from his Department in collaboration with the Board of Trade, to consult with the West Indies on this after before an agreement is reached with Cuba?

Mr. Dugdale: Consultations are continuous. I do not think there is any need for a special delegation of that character.

Mr. Gammans: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to find out what an enormous volume of criticism there is in the West Indies today against the action that the Government have taken, and the fact that this action has been taken behind their backs without consultation at all?

Mr. Foot: Since there is no action that has been taken decisively in this matter, will not ray right hon. Friend consider the suggestion which I have made, and which, I assure him, would meet with great approval in the West Indies? It would meet with great gratification if a delegation could go from here to discuss the whole matter fully before an agreement is reached.

Mr. Dugdale: I will lay that suggestion before my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Local Forces

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will ask colonial governments which have not local military forces adequate for the prevention of serious local disorder where police forces are not sufficient for the purpose, to recruit, organise and equip such forces locally, thus reducing the demands on British Forces.

Mr. Dugdale: Most colonial governments have either police forces or military forces, or both, considered adequate to prevent serious local disorder; and the

scale of local military forces existing in the Colonies is based on that factor. Where deficiencies are known to exist, His Majesty's Government are considering, in consultation with the colonial governments concerned, what means should best be adopted to repair them.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, will he assure the House that the Government are busily examining the question of Grenada where there was a recent rebellion which troops of this kind might well have prevented?

Mr. Dugdale: We are examining the whole question, including Grenada.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In connection with the safety of other West Indian Colonies, will the question of the reformation of the West Indian Regiment be seriously considered?

Mr. Dugdale: That is another question.

Development Corporation

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the resignations that are about to take place from the Board of the Colonial Development Corporation.

Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend has no information about any such impending resignations from the Board, nor, I have ascertained, has the chairman.

Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister be mindful of these denials when the resignations take place?

Mr. Dugdale: I shall be interested to know that the party opposite happened to have information which was denied not only to His Majesty's Government but to the chairman of the Corporation.

Mr. Sorensen: Does it not seem rather serious that this information has come to some private Member and not to the Minister? Will he not make investigations?

Mr. Dugdale: I cannot believe that the information is correct.

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report of the Colonial Development Corporation will be available.

Mr. Dugdale: I am unable to give a definite date, but my right hon. Friend hopes that the publication of the report will take place very shortly.

Mr. Alport: When the report is published, will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Leader of the House to ensure that full facilities are given to debate it?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly.

Mr. Gerald Williams: What date does this report bring us up to? Will it be to the end of the year?

Mr. Dugdale: The report will be to the 1st April.

Racial Discrimination

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what Colonies have legislation or regulations making unlawful any discrimination of colour, race or creed in respect of accommodation, entertainment, refreshment or employment; and in which colonial areas such discrimination operates.

Mr. Dugdale: No territory, so far as I am aware, has general legislation of the kind described. There are some examples of legislation against particular discriminatory practices. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) on 14th February.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that there are some colonial areas where race and colour discrimination are being practised at present? In the circumstances does he not think it rather advisable that legislation should be introduced, where possible, in those areas to meet that situation?

Mr. Dugdale: I think it is advisable that we should consider whether legislation should or should not be introduced, but in any case before considering these questions we think it better to await the Survey of Racial Discrimination now being made. In the meantime those who feel, as I think most hon. Members do, that racial discrimination is repugnant in every country should express their feelings by refraining from entering any public places where it is practised.

Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling that exists in Northern Rhodesia that certain hon. Members on the opposite side of the House showed racial discrimination against Europeans in Northern Rhodesia?

Sir Ian Fraser: Will the Minister of State and the Colonial Service generally, be warned by the aphorism of a famous Socialist, Mr. Sidney Webb, about the inevitability of gradualness?

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand from my right hon. Friend that he thinks it advisable that legislation of this character should be introduced? Is so, would he consider the possibility of recommending legislation for Northern Rhodesia, where, according to the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), white settlers are badly treated?

Mr. Dugdale: I think it would be better to await the Survey of Racial Discrimination, which I hope will be published within a reasonable time.

Sir Herbert Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to read the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), in which he does not prescribe any protection against racial discrimination in employment in this country?

Mr. Dugdale: As the question has been put to me in a rather peculiar manner, I would point out that the hon. Member is not the only person who has time to read Bills. I have, in fact, read that Bill.

Information Services

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the continual misunderstandings which arise in the United Nations about the responsibilities and policies of the main colonial Powers, he will consider the desirability of seeking the collaboration of France, Holland. Belgium and Portugal in developing a more adequate information and propaganda service in that connection.

Mr. Dugdale: I share my hon. Friend's view that information on these subjects should be as widespread as possible, but it is, I think, for each country with colonial responsibilities to interpret and to judge what it can do in this direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the development of the Cooperative movement in Nigeria and in the issuing of explanatory literature in the vernacular.

Mr. Dugdale: The movement is developing steadily. I will, with permission, circulate some figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My right hon. Friend has asked the Governor about the issue of vernacular literature and will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a recent annual Co-operative conference a unanimous decision was taken that the movement should provide teams of administrators for Nigeria and for backward countries, and that they are very anxious to help to create a higher standard of living?

Mr. Dugdale: I am glad to hear that; in fact, the movement's progress has been exceedingly satisfactory.

Following are the figures:


—
1945
1950


Number of societies of all kinds.
580
1,092


Number of consumer societies.
7
38


Share capital paid up
£7,000
£45,000


Deposits
£7,000
£72,000


Value of produce marketed through societies.
£361,000
£1,160,000


Loans granted through societies.
£25,000
£141,000

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL STUDENTS (HOSTELS)

Mr. Porter: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take in the interest of colonial students, residing at present in the hostels to be closed by the British Council at Leeds and elsewhere.

Mr. Dugdale: The British Council is responsible for the accommodation of colonial students, and I am informed that it will make arrangements for the accommodation of any student who may be displaced

by the closing of these hostels. There were only five colonial students in residence at the Manchester hostel. Alternative accommodation arrangements for four of them has been made by the British Council. The fifth one preferred to find his own flat. The Leeds hostel will not close until July. There are eight colonial students residing at the hostel at the moment. Arrangements for their rehousing will be made by the British Council in good time.

Mr. Porter: Is it not true that my right hon. Friend's Department transferred these responsibilities only 12 months ago? If the Council are not now prepared to shoulder these responsibilities, will he again assume responsibility for these students?

Mr. Dugdale: That is a hypothetical question, but there is every evidence that the Council are carrying out their responsibilities in an admirable manner.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the present financial arrangements between His Majesty's Government and the British Council in respect of the provision and supervision of hostels for colonial students; for how many centres the British Council are or have been responsible to his Department; for how many students accommodation by this means has been or is now being provided; and what is the extent and nature of alternative arrangements for students made by the British Council.

Mr. Dugdale: A sum of £425,000 has been set aside from the funds which are, or will be, available under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts to cover the expenses of the British Council's work for accommodation and welfare of colonial students from January, 1950, to March, 1954. This includes provision for one hostel for men students and one for women students in London, and, for the present, for the maintenance of a hostel for men students at Edinburgh and another at Newcastle. These hostels house altogether about 300 students. Most colonial students live in university accommodation or in private hostels, in lodgings or with families. The Council has staff and arrangements for helping students to find such accommodation in


every university centre in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister satisfied with the arrangements made some time ago regarding the function and power of the British Council to meet the needs of these students, and can he also say how often the British Council have reported to him on their progress in this respect?

Mr. Dugdale: I have every confidence in the British Council's ability to provide this accommodation, and I have no reason to suppose that they are not provided at present.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is not accommodation for only 300 students grossly inadequate in view of the number of students visiting this country? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this is one of the most serious social problems of the City of London?

Mr. Dugdale: I do not consider that accommodation for students in special hostels is necessarily the ideal solution of the problem. It is much better for them to be housed in universities or found accommodation with families, and the British Council make every effort to do that.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend realise the difficulties of colonial students in London and other places, and will he institute an inquiry to see if something more cannot be done for them?

Mr. Sorensen: Would the Minister kindly reply to the second part of my supplementary question, in which I asked him how often the British Council reported to him on the progress they make in this direction?

Mr. Dugdale: We are continually in touch with the British Council, who keep us informed from time to time as cases arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA

Armoured Vehicles

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the majority of the armoured cars being used by the security forces in Malaya were made during the last war and are short of spare parts, and that

an undue percentage of them is always under repair; and how many new vehicles have been sent to Malaya during the past six months.

Mr. Dugdale: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." The armoured vehicles are, however, all completely reconditioned; there is no scarcity of spare parts; and less than 10 per cent. are under repair. Sixty-one armoured vehicles have been sent out during the past six months for use by the police. The Malay Regiment obtains its vehicles and stores through military channels. There is some difficulty over spare parts for these vehicles, and repairs to them are subject to delay.

Mr. Gammans: How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this statement with the assurance that the Prime Minister gave the House, about 18 months ago, that Malaya was getting first priority in the provision of new equipment?

Mr. Dugdale: I explained that the position is very much better than might have been supposed by the hon. Member's Question.

Brigadier Medlicott: As these vehicles are presumably supplied by the Secretary of State for War, was it not inevitable that they would be short of nuts?

Air Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great shortage of armoured vehicles on rubber estates, and will he see that the men who are earning the dollars for us get some protection by having these vehicles?

Mr. Dugdale: I will look into that.

Leprosy Treatment (Sulphurtone)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what supplies of sulphurtone were sent to the two leper colonies in Malaya in 1950; if the amount sent was sufficient to meet the requirements; and what improvements in the treatment of leprosy have been recently introduced.

Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend is consulting the High Commissioner and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as a reply is received.

Mr. Awbery: Will my right hon. Friend see that periodical supplies of sulphurtone are sent to Malaya? Will he also see that every improvement in the treatment of this disease is introduced in Malaya and the other Colonies as quickly as possible?

Mr. Dugdale: We fully realise the importance of seeing to these matters, but I must await the report before I can give a definite answer.

Rubber (Acreage)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what acreage was replanted in Malaya with budded rubber in 1949 and 1950; and what acreage is contemplated in 1951 and 1952.

Mr. Dugdale: Figures for 1949 and 1950 for the Federation of Malaya are 33,569 acres and 31,297 acres respectively. It is not known what acreage is contemplated in 1951 and 1952.

Mr. Awbery: In view of the fact that this is the most productive method of producing rubber, will my right hon. Friend give instructions that it will be used throughout the Federation?

Mr. Dugdale: That is a matter of opinion, but my right hon. Friend is only too anxious that every possible method shall be used, this one among them.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how this acreage was divided as between estates and other producers?

Mr. Dugdale: Not without notice.

Air Commodore Harvey: What proportion of the replanting was carried out by native growers?

Mr. Dugdale: I could not say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST (DISEASED COCOA TREES)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the recent decision of the Government of the Gold Coast to abandon the practice of cutting out diseased cocoa trees.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the Gold Coast Government's

suspension of compulsory cutting down of cocoa trees infected with swollen shoot.

Mr. Dugdale: It was announced in the Legislative Assembly on 3rd April that the Executive Council had decided that there should be a suspension of compulsory cutting-out for one month while an inquiry into the organisation and methods of the cutting-out campaign was held; but that cutting-out should continue in those farms where the owners agreed to it. A committee has been set up by the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources to undertake the inquiry and to report within one month. In subsequent statements by Ministers it was emphasised that scientists had so far produced no effective treatment for swollen shoot other than cutting out and that the Government must accept this.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what is the constitutional position in connection with the cutting out of diseased cocoa trees? Has the Minister any power whatsoever now to enforce cutting out if he is convinced it is absolutely necessary to save the cocoa industry?

Mr. Dugdale: I think I made it clear that there is no question of the cutting out being stopped. The Secretary of State has every confidence that the Government of the Gold Coast are taking this step only as a temporary measure and intend to see that a proper review is made of the subject within this month and that if there is any necessity for cutting out continuing it shall continue.

Mr. Keeling: As not only the experts but also Mr. Nkrumah himself have said that cutting out is the only known treatment, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the suspension will not be extended beyond one month?

Mr. Dugdale: It is for the Government of the Gold Coast to give that assurance, but in view of the statement by Mr. Nkrumah I have every confidence that it will be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE RIOTS (REPORT)

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report on the riots in Singapore will be published.

Mr. Dugdale: The report, which will be addressed to the Governor, has not yet been presented, and I cannot at present give a date for its publication. My right hon. Friend is, however, fully aware of the desirability of publishing the report as soon as possible.

Squadron Leader Burden: Can the House have an assurance that it will be published and made available to Members at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Snow: Can my right hon. Friend say, whether, when this report is published, it will include reports made in the two years before the riots on the subject of the police, and whether these reports reached the High Commissioner in their complete form or not?

Mr. Dugdale: That is quite a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA

Tea Prices, Tanganyika and Kenya

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken to equate the controlled price of tea in Tanganyika and Kenya so as to prevent existing anomalies; and what steps are being taken to unify fiscal and commercial regulations between the two territories.

Mr. Dugdale: An inter-territorial committee of producers is at present working out proposals for a uniform range of prices for tea consumed in East Africa. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Government of each East African territory makes its own fiscal and commercial regulations. There is constant consultation between the governments in order to ensure that degree of uniformity which is to their common advantage.

Mr. Alport: Has the right hon. Gentleman realised that existing circumstances are an invitation to continual smuggling between the two Colonies and the frustration of the existing Customs and Excise regulations? Will he do his best to secure that the regulations are unified to the greatest possible extent?

Mr. Dugdale: I hope that there is no more smuggling between these two Colonies than between any other countries which have different Customs and Excise regulations.

Construction Company, Tanganyika (Staff)

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what dates the redundancy terms were fully discussed with representatives of the staff of the Earthmoving and Construction Company, Ltd., in Tanganyika; and on what date his Department was assured that the terms were generally acceptable.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what redundancy terms were offered to employees of the Earthmoving Construction Company, Ltd., in Tanganyika who are serving on a 12-month contract and to those serving on a three-year contract, respectively; and to what extent these terms differed from those offered to the Overseas Food Corporation.

Mr. Dugdale: The question of redundancy terms does not arise in the case of the staff of Earthmoving and Construction, Ltd. All except 17 of that staff are, or were, on short-term contracts, and their employment has been, or will be, dealt with in accordance with the provisions of those contracts. The 17 who are on three-year contracts have been offered the alternative of completing their contracts or of terminating them and receiving the cash equivalent of one third of the unexpired portion. This option remains open.
I regret that my statement on 5th March on the terms of compensation for European staff in East Africa was inaccurate. For the reasons given, redundancy terms have not been discussed with staff representatives of Earthmoving and Construction, Ltd.

Mr. Alport: Will the Minister make certain that when he makes a future statement on a subject of importance of this sort to employees of a corporation the statement will be accurate?

Mr. Dugdale: I cannot do more than say to the House that the statement was inaccurate. I hope that that information is sufficient.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a matter of the very greatest importance? In the debate on 5th March he said that a satisfactory agreement had been reached with the employees, but in fact no talks started until 16th March, when the chairman of the corporation went to East Africa. All the three-year-contract men have repudiated the agreement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] This is a matter of great importance to a number of people. Did not the right hon. Gentleman get out of a difficult Parliamentary situation by saying something which was wholly untrue?

Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Gentleman is making rather heavy weather about this. I have admitted perfectly openly that the statement was inaccurate and I cannot do more than that. The number of people referred to is 17. They are on a three-year contract, as I have stated. They were offered alternatives, to accept either the one or the other. There was consultation, because they were offered either one alternative or the other.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet realised what the Question is about. It is not a question of consultation only with the three-year men. There was no consultation with anybody. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Is it not a fact—

Mr. Speaker: This should be a question and not a debate.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not a fact that there was no consultation with anybody, three-year men or otherwise? The chairman of the corporation did not get to East Africa until 11 days after the right hon. Gentleman said that consultation had taken place.

Mr. Dugdale: May I make this point? I have said, and I repeat, that all except 17 of that staff are or were on short-term contracts, that their employment will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of those contracts and that that is the method employed by private enterprise. It is, in fact, the method which has been employed by this particular company, whose servants are not Government servants.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUBBER CONFERENCE, ROME

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the official rubber conference being held in Rome; and state to what extent there is direct representation of the rubber industry both Asian and European.

Mr. Dugdale: The official Rubber Conference now being held in Rome is a continuation of the conference held in London during February, on which the President of the Board of Trade made a statement to the House on 15th February. The British Colonial and Dependent Territories delegation includes advisers from the European and Asian rubber industry, selected after consultation with the governments concerned.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what this conference is supposed to be discussing? Is it the price of rubber, or the denial of strategic materials to the Communist Powers? What is the main object?

Mr. Dugdale: The conference is discussing quite a number of things, but certainly not the latter of those which the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — FALKLAND ISLANDS DEPENDENCIES

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who is now in occupation of Paradise Island.

Mr. Dugdale: I assume that the reference is to Paradise Harbour in the Falkland Islands Dependencies. There are an Argentine and a Chilean post on two islands in this harbour. Protests at these actions of trespass on British territory have been delivered locally to the leaders of both parties.

Mr. Maclean: In view of the complete futility of these repeated protests will the Government take steps to expel these undesirable elements?

Mr. Dugdale: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means. Does he mean engaging in warlike operations?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the Minister tell us how long this fatuous state of affairs has existed? How long have these people been there?

Mr. Dugdale: The protests were delivered by the "John Briscoe," when it was relieving British posts in the Dependencies. The Chileans have been there rather longer than the Argentinians. The Chileans set up their post during the Antarctic season, which is just ending.

Mr. Maclean: Have no protests been delivered through the ordinary diplomatic channels to the Governments concerned?

Mr. Dugdale: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Aircraft

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what time has elapsed between the issue of first staff requirements and the equip ping of the first Fleet Air Arm Squadron with the last three new types of aircraft accepted by his Department.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): Five, 4½ and 5 years approximately.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman's mind not disturbed by the length of time it is taking these aircraft to get into service from the drawing board?

Mr. Callaghan: To the layman it seems long, but I am told that our aircraft are not out of line with any others in this matter of production.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when it is anticipated that the GR 17/44 aircraft for which the staff requirement was issued in December 1945 will come into service.

Mr. Callaghan: I regret it would not be in the public interest to disclose this information, but the House can rest assured that all practicable steps will be taken to ensure that the G.R. 17 will come into service at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that an aircraft which

was conceived in 1944 and came into service this year was out of line with the answer which he has given to the previous Question? Will he not seriously consider holding an inquiry, with the Ministry of Supply, into the whole question of aircraft production?

Mr. Callaghan: I am quite ready to look into those matters, but I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the weight of aircraft production is on the R.A.F.

Dockyard, Bermuda

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the naval dockyard in Bermuda is now finally closed.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): Yes, Sir.

Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that this small dockyard community has done very good work for over 100 years, and that the closing of the dockyard has severed an important link in the Colony with the Royal Navy? Would he consider sending a special message to the Government of Bermuda?

Mr. Edwards: I am quite prepared to reiterate the expressed opinion of the Board of Admiralty as to the great services which have been rendered by the Bermuda Government and people living in Bermuda. I will look at the other point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. P. Smithers: Does the Minister's answer mean that the considerable number of Barbadians employed in this dockyard have been discharged, and if so can he give an assurance that they have been found employment?

Mr. Edwards: If we have no work we have to discharge them, and if there is no employment for them out there I can give no assurance that they will be employed.

Defence Programme (Priority)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty which type of vessels rank as first priority in the defence programme.

Mr. Callaghan: The emphasis, at present, is on ships and aircraft for antisubmarine and mine warfare.

Colonel Hutchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the shortage of steel arising from the shortage of transport wagons which, if not tackled very soon, will result in an automatic priority system which may not be as comfortable as the one which the hon. Gentleman wants?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, but I should have thought that that question would have been better addressed to the Minister of Supply.

Colonel Hutchison: Has the hon. Member consulted his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Callaghan: I am always consulting him.

Retained Men

Captain Ryder: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps have been taken to assist those ratings who are being retained beyond their Regular long service engagements by reducing the additional time for which they are being retained, and by assisting them to obtain civilian or Government employment.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many men due for release after long service in the Royal Navy have now been retained for a further 18 months; to what extent he anticipates that it will be necessary for all these men to serve the full extra time; whether he has now investigated the possibility of safeguarding the position of such of these men as had already secured offers of employment in civilian life; and what provisions exist for appeals against retention on grounds of hardship.

Mr. Callaghan: Approximately 6,000 men have now been retained. I am unable to say that any reduction in the period of retention will be possible. Appeals for release are considered on their merits, but release can only be permitted in cases where there are exceptional compassionate circumstances. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT information about the measures to assist the resettlement of retained men.

Captain Ryder: As this comparatively small section of the community is particularly hard hit, is the hon. Gentleman

satisfied that the measures he is taking to ensure their employment when they return to civilian life will be effective?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that we can guarantee that for everybody. I should have thought that the chief advantage lies in the fact that we are likely to be in a period of full employment.

Mr. Driberg: Can my hon. Friend say whether it would be possible to reduce the extra time by calling up more Royal Fleet reservists, who have, after all, always been aware of their obligation, whereas these men do feel that, although what the Government are doing is quite legal, it is a breach of contract?

Mr. Callaghan: It would be possible to shorten the period of service by doing that, but I am not at all sure that we should do justice to the Royal Fleet reservists if we did so.

Following is the information:

The facilities for finding employment for ex-Regulars are constantly being extended, and will be available to these men. For example, in Civil Service examinations, and certain London County Council examinations, ex-Regulars are allowed to deduct the actual period of Regular service in order to bring them within the age limits. Men who had already competed successfully in the special Civil Service examinations for the executive and clerical classes will have appointments held for them. In the police my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary has informed the appointing authorities that, in suitable cases, he is prepared to approve the appointment of Regular Service men who would have been within the age limit but for their retention.

Mr. Foot: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give an undertaking that those men retained in the Royal Navy for 18 months after the expiry of their normal period of service will not have their period of service further extended.

Mr. Callaghan: I can give a firm assurance that no increase in the period of retention beyond 18 months is contemplated.

Mr. Foot: In view of that welcome assurance, can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the Admiralty is taking action to raise the regular size of the Navy sufficiently in order to make sure that he will be able to fulfil the assurance?

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend need be in no doubt that we shall increase the size of Vote A this year.

Greenwich Hospital (Water Supply Scheme)

Mr. Donald Scott: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is now in a position to report on the progress of the negotiations between Greenwich Hospital and the Alston-with-Garrigill Rural District Council with regard to a lease of land owned by the former and required by the latter in connection with a water supply scheme.

Mr. Callaghan: Negotiations are now at an advanced stage and I hope that a satisfactory settlement will be reached shortly.

Mr. Scott: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these negotiations have been going on for a very long time and that the dog-in-the-manger attitude of Greenwich Hospital has already caused grave hardship to the people of Alston-with-Garrigill? Can he promise us today that the negotiation will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion within, say, four weeks?

Mr. Callaghan: I know that the negotiations have been going on for a long time, but I do not blame Greenwich Hospital altogether for that. I have been into the facts of the case. A more prompt reply to letters would speed up negotiations a little.

Destroyer (Sale to Egypt)

Captain Soames: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why H.M.S. "Cottesmore" has been sold to the Egyptian Government; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to sell to foreign Powers other destroyers of this class.

Mr. Callaghan: This ship was sold in June, 1950, as surplus to our requirements. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and

gallant Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) on 4th April.

Captain Soames: In view of the hon. Gentleman's reply to Question No. 36 about priority being given to antisubmarine vessels in the defence programme, how can he say that this vessel was surplus to requirements? If the Government wish to sell anti-submarine vessels, would it not be wiser to sell them to nations subscribing to the Atlantic Pact?

Mr. Callaghan: As to the first part of the supplementary question, I believe we have none of this class of ships now serving with the Navy. At any rate, we have only one or two. As to the second part of the supplementary, it is our policy to sell these ships, or to loan them or give them, to countries in danger as a first priority.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman state in what respects the negotiations over H.M.S. "Cottesmore" differ from those over the Centurion tanks, which, we were assured in the House, were not to be sent to Egypt?

Mr. Callaghan: This ship was offered to the Egyptians as long ago as the autumn of 1949. She is not now H.M.S. "Cottesmore," and has not been for a very long time. She is an Egyptian ship, manned by an Egyptian crew.

Mr. Awbery: Were not old battleships and new battleships sold to friendly Powers and potential enemy Powers when the Tory Party was in power?

Sir H. Williams: Would it not have been rather useful if H.M.S. "Cottesmore" had been retained in the Navy to escort British tankers through the Suez Canal?

Naval Constructors (Pay)

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will now make a statement on the pay and conditions of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors.

Mr. W. Edwards: The scale of pay of the constructor grade of the Royal Corps has, as already announced by my noble Friend in another place on 11th April,


been increased from £900–£950 at the minimum, and from £1,250–£1,375 at the maximum, with effect from 1st August, 1950.

Commander Noble: Is the Civil Lord aware that the changes which the First Lord announced are in the higher grades? Can he say when he will announce the changes for those under training?

Mr. Edwards: I cannot give any definite date with regard to the probationers, but we are doing all we possibly can to reach an early settlement.

Motor Torpedo Boats

Brigadier Head: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many new motor torpedo boats have been built and commissioned since the end of the war.

Mr. Callaghan: Twenty-four, Sir.

Brigadier Head: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those responsible for constructing these vessels state that between 1945 and now nothing like that number-have been made, and that they have had to pay off men and close their yards through lack of orders? Is he aware that his answer is misleading to the House?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir.

Brigadier Head: If it is not misleading, may I ask him whether, in referring to 24 vessels, he is referring to vessels started during the war but not completed then and re-started recently?

Mr. Callaghan: I am answering the Question, which asked how many M.T.B.s. have been built and commissioned since the end of the war.

Retained Officers

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what progress he has made towards the granting to extended service officers now compulsorily retained in the Service an option to take up permanent engagements.

Mr. Callaghan: This matter is under review. I realise that the officers concerned would like to have a decision quickly, but it will be some time yet before an announcement can be made.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, as these officers were so welcome to the Admiralty not only during but since the war, they are now likely to be equally welcome to the Admiralty in the longer term, and, therefore, should be entitled to expect consideration?

Mr. Callaghan: I fully accept what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Aircraft Spares (Supplies to Egypt)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Defence what quantity and value of jet and airframe spares have been sold to the Egyptian Government since 1st November, 1950, or are under contract to be delivered.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): The quantities of jet engine and jet airframe spares supplied to the Egyptian Government since 1st November, 1950 have been strictly limited to those required for the essential maintenance of aircraft previously acquired by that country. It would be contrary to practice to disclose figures of cost or other-details of contracts with foreign governments.

Air Commodore Harvey: But does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that whatever quantity has been supplied to the Egyptian Government would have been of great use to our own units, particularly the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, which is short of jet spares? Does he not think this is an extraordinary thing to do to a country which has behaved in such a shabby manner to Britain?

Mr. Shinwell: That has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Wilkes: Does the Minister think it a wise policy, or a policy which makes any kind of sense at all, to sell armaments of any kind to Egypt at the same time as Egypt is proclaiming that she will never sign a Peace Treaty in the Middle East?

Mr. Shinwell: This Question does not relate to the sale of armaments but to the provision of spares.

Mr. Profumo: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the difference


between the provision of spares for armaments and the provision of new armaments? Does not this constitute a breach of the undertaking which was given to the House earlier?

Mr. Shinwell: Certainly not, Sir.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that during the recent discussion on financial facilities the case was repeatedly made that until Egypt honoured her international obligations we should not grant her any special favours? In the light of that, will he look at these deliveries, which are a special favour to the Egyptians?

Mr. Shinwell: They cannot be considered as special favours in any sense of the term. The aircraft were provided some considerable time ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—that is not the question that I am answering now—and the only question that arises is whether we should provide spare parts; and that is what we are doing.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least give us this decision, that no further supplies of aircraft will be forwarded until our Treaty rights are observed?

Mr. Shinwell: The statement that was made in the House quite recently gives, I think, a complete answer to the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but there are certain aspects of the matter which might properly be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Reservists (Training)

Mr. Mulley: asked the Minister of Defence why there is a difference between the policy of the Army and the policy of the Royal Air Force in deciding whether it is possible to change the dates of Class Z and Class G reservists called up for training in cases of personal hardship arising from the particular period for which the reservist is called up; and if he is aware of the dissatisfaction this difference is causing among Class Z reservists who feel that their Class G counterparts are receiving more sympathetic treatment.

Mr. Shinwell: The difficulties of offering alternative dates to Z reservists have

already been explained to my hon. Friend in the reply given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. Class G reservists, on the other hand, will be trained as individuals and not as members of a team. Consequently, there is more scope for adjusting their dates of call up. Every consideration will, however, be given to cases in which Army reservists would suffer real personal hardship.

Mr. Mulley: In view of the great dissatisfaction among members of the Class Z and Class G Reserves because of this difference of policy, will my right hon. Friend take urgent action to see that the public is informed of the reasons for the different treatment in respect of the War Office and the Air Ministry?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware that the treatment differs but, if it does, I would suggest that my hon. Friend puts Questions to the respective Ministers.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his right hon. Friends in order to try to adjust these dates, particularly to meet the needs of the agricultural industry, which will have great difficulty over the harvest this year?

Mr. Shinwell: If there is any question of serious inconvenience my right hon. Friends will consider it.

Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be equal care and consideration in cases of personal hardship among the 6,000 long-service men retained in the Royal Navy?

Mr. Shinwell: I would like to see that question on the Paper.

Pensions

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Defence whether he is aware of the hardship suffered by Service widows, especially those getting on in years, under the present high cost of living; and whether he has any scheme to help these people.

Mr. Shinwell: Service widows are in the same position as regards pensions as the dependants of Crown servants generally for whom additional provision was made by the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1947.

Commander Noble: In view of the statement made by the Minister of Pensions yesterday about the immediate problem does not the Minister think that he might be able to help some of the more desperate cases? With regard to the long-term problem, is he expecting to make a statement on pensions like he did on pay a few months ago?

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the latter part of the supplementary question, there is a Question on the Order Paper. As regards the first part, this is not a matter which comes within my responsibility. It has to be considered in the context of the Pensions (Increase) Act.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will not further hardship be imposed on these widows by the proposed charge for dentures and spectacles, and will my right hon. Friend make that representation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Shinwell: That remains to be seen.

Mr. Osborne: Is not the Minister aware that since the last adjustment in 1947 the cost of living has increased by about 25 per cent., and ought not the pension to be looked at again because of that fact?

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member has a remarkable grasp of the obvious.

Captain Soames: asked the Minister of Defence if he is now in a position to make a statement in regard to an upward revision of Service pensions to bring them into line with recent increases in pay.

Mr. Shinwell: I hope to make an announcement on this subject at an early date.

Railway Travel Warrants (Cost)

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Minister of Defence what was the total amount paid to the Transport Commission for free railway travel warrants issued to Service personnel on leave in 1950; and whether the Service Departments pay full fare rates for these vouchers.

Mr. Shinwell: It is estimated that the cost of Service leave travel at public expense during 1950–51 amounted to approximately £2,400,000. The exact amount could not be ascertained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour since payment is made to the

railway regions for leave and duty travel together. In common with all other Service traffic this is paid for at special rates agreed between the railways and Service Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Canned Meat Imports

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Food why canned beef is not imported from Eire; and whether he contemplates opening negotiations with regard to price in the near future.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): Canned meats, including canned beef, are, in fact, being imported by private traders from the Irish Republic.

Brigadier Peto: Can the Minister say whether he has negotiated on a Government basis with Eire for the import of canned beef?

Mr. Webb: Not on a Government basis.

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Food to what extent canned horse is now being imported from Eire.

Mr. Webb: None, Sir.

Brigadier Peto: Would it not be an advantage, at any rate to the horses, if they were killed and canned before export for human consumption in this country?

Associated Tripe Dressers, Ltd.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Food who are the present directors of Associated Tripe Dressers, Ltd.; for how long this firm has been the Government agency for the distribution of tripe; and what profit or loss has been incurred to date.

Mr. Webb: The present directors are Messrs. W. H. Hobbs (Chairman), W. S. Gibson, B. Emms, J. Almond, A. Hill, H. Longworth, R. Sanderson, H. E. Hearne and A. J. Ford. The company was set up in 1940. It is a non-profit earning company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: In the interests of the nation as a whole, and of His Majesty's Government in particular, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there is the closest


possible co-operation and liaison at all levels between representatives of these tripe merchants and the publications and publicity department of Transport House? Further, can we look forward to greatly increased production of this commodity just before the next General Election?

Mr. Webb: This firm of tripe merchants was founded by a gentleman for whom I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman has great respect—my predecessor, who was Minister of Food at that time. I do not feel called upon to interfere with his wise choice in this matter.

Meat Ration

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Food why he was able to give only one week's notice that the meat ration for the week beginning 15th April would be solely fresh meat.

Mr. Webb: We cannot know for certain how much home-killed meat we shall have until nine days before the week in which it will be issued; and nine days' notice was given. I always try to give the maximum notice of any ration changes resulting from the inevitable fluctuations in our supplies.

Sugar Ration

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of Food why he cannot increase the sugar ration instead of making bonus issues from time to time.

Mr. Webb: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) on Monday, 19th March.

Cattle Allocations, Harrogate

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Food what was the number of clean cattle and the number of old cows and bulls allocated to Harrogate from neighbour ing collecting centres during the weeks ended 7th April and 14th April, respectively.

Mr. Webb: During the week ended 7th April 38 young cattle and 18 cows and bulls were sent to Harrogate from neighbouring collecting centres. For the week ended 14th April the figures were 41 and four respectively. During the same two weeks three beasts were allocated for manufacturing purposes.

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Food to which towns clean cattle, graded at local collecting centres around Harrogate, were allocated during the weeks ending 7th April and 14th April, respectively.

Mr. Webb: During the week ended 7th April all the clean cattle purchased by my Department at Pannal were sent to Harrogate. Fifteen out of 25 purchased in Knaresborough were sent to Leeds and 10 to Harrogate. In the following week there was no collection at Pannal and all the clean cattle from Knaresborough went to Harrogate.

Imported Feedingstuffs

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food what percentage of imported feedingstuffs are obtained from countries of Eastern Europe.

Mr. Webb: Last year's figure was 29 per cent.

Mr. Bossom: In view of the conditions justifying the great re-armament programme, does not the Minister consider it is more desirable to endeavour to get this feeding material from the Empire?

Mr. Webb: We try to get these important feedingstuffs from wherever we can get them. If we can get them from the Empire, then indeed we shall, but we need to get them from Eastern Europe and shall continue to do so.

Mr. Bossom: But cannot the right hon. Gentleman get more from the Empire?

Enforcement Inspectors

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food if he will explain the instructions that are given to his enforcement officers when they call upon butchers to see that the regulations are respected.

Mr. Webb: In the normal course of their duties enforcement inspectors visit butchers' establishments to make sure that the orders governing the distribution, supply and price of meat are being observed. They have a detailed course of training and notes for guidance are issued from time to time which include instructions to avoid any improper use of their powers. In the course of an inquiry the services of trade experts are available to give any technical advice needed.

Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that on 14th April one of his employees gave an interview in which it was stated:
It was easy for me. I could often get round the butcher for a little over the top—some women can, you know"?
Does he not consider such a procedure totally repugnant to English ideas of justice?

Mr. Webb: I should like to have particulars of that allegation and that statement.

Sir H. Williams: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware of what was published in the newspapers and of a picture of the blonde—who turned out to be a brunette—employed by his Department?

Mr. Webb: I am aware of many things published in the newspapers—and of the inaccuracy to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention. If there is any basis in this allegation I would like to look into it.

Mr. Bossom: If I hand the Minister the paper which I have in my hand, will he deny that the statement is true?

Oral Answers to Questions — H.M. SUBMARINE "AFFRAY"

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make in regard to H.M. Submarine "Affray.

Mr. Callaghan: H.M. Submarine "Affray" left Portsmouth at 4.30 p.m. on Monday for a practice war patrol designed to give officers of the Submarine Training Course experience at sea in a submarine under war conditions. She has on board her Captain and four ship's officers and a crew of 46 naval ratings, together with 20 officers from the Training Course and four Royal Marine other ranks of a Marine Training Course. At 8.56 on Monday evening she signalled that she proposed to dive at 9.15. She was then south of the Isle of Wight, and her intention after diving was to proceed westwards through the Channel.
She was expected to surface and to report between eight and nine o'clock yesterday morning, but no report was received. A search was at once organised

by the Flag Officer, Submarines, acting on behalf of the Commander-in-Chief. Portsmouth. All available ships of the Royal Navy, aircraft of Coastal Command and Naval aircraft, including helicopters, took part in the search. I also gratefully acknowledge the assistance given by ships of the United States, French and Belgian Navies.
The "Affray" is fully equipped with the latest type of escape apparatus, including sufficient escape suits for all on board. She is also fitted with a marker buoy at each end, which can be released from inside. Just before 1 a.m. to-day, H.M. Submarine "Sea Devil" reported that she had heard signals which were definitely from "Affray." Further signals were heard at 2.35 a.m. by another submarine. She is apparently lying on the sea bed at a depth of about 200 ft., near the place where she dived, but her precise position has not yet been fixed.
Explosive sound signals were made at 5.45 this morning over the position where the vessel is believed to be lying. These signals told her crew that surface craft were ready in position to pick up any men who surfaced by means of escape apparatus. Forty-four surface ships and seven submarines taking part in the search formed a ring covering a wide area and are ready to proceed to the rescue should any survivors escape and appear on the surface. So far none has been sighted. Aircraft from 19 Group, R.A.F., and five naval air stations are also taking part in the search, while R.A.F. and Royal Naval helicopters are standing by. Some of the helicopters and aircraft are fitted with airborne lifeboats.
The Board of Admiralty would like to extend their sincere sympathy to the relatives of the officers and men on board in their ordeal. I should also like to record the untiring and self-forgetful efforts of all those who have organised and are engaged in the search. The relatives can be assured that everything humanly possible will be done by those who are carrying out the search as long as there is any hope that lives can be saved.

Mr. Thomas: We on these benches, of course, wish to join with the Parliamentary Secretary in the message of sympathy to the families of those on board in these most distressing hours of waiting, and also in congratulating those who are taking


part in the search. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would wish to take the opportunity of denying a statement in certain sections of the Press, which I believe to be quite inaccurate, that there was any delay whatsoever in starting the rescue work?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. That is quite untrue. I satisfied myself this morning, by reference to the signals that were passed, that there was no delay in putting into force the proper procedure that is laid down on these occasions.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of what my hon. Friend has said—that there was no idea that anything untoward had happened until between eight and nine o'clock the next morning, when the submarine was due to surface—may I ask whether it is a matter of routine that submarines on such exercises should report their position during the night, after diving?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. It is not possible for a submarine to report its position after diving. There were fixed instructions in the sailing orders of the "Affray" for her to report her position between 0800 hours and 0900 every morning. When 0900 arrived and no signal had been received, doubts began to be raised. The area of search has been narrowed down and it seems possible that the submarine suffered the disaster shortly after diving.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: While I appreciate the good work which is being done, can my hon. Friend indicate what time it is expected remains for the rescue of the men in the submarine? What is the normal time that remains in such circumstances as my hon. Friend has outlined?

Mr. Callaghan: That must depend upon the number of men and upon the number of oxygen producing canisters that have survived. I do not think that any useful estimate can be given. I am bound to say, however, that 43 hours have elapsed since the submarine dived, and time is getting on.

Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the fact that the submarine was fitted with marker buoys, and is at a depth such as has been ascertained, means that those buoys cannot reach the surface from that depth?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. The submarine is lying in 200 ft. of water. I examined marker buoys of this kind at Portsmouth this morning, and they have at least 100 fathoms of wire attached to them. There is no reason at all why the buoys should not come to the surface.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: What is the possibility of using divers to discover the whereabouts of the submarine?

Mr. Callaghan: I regret to say that we have not yet fixed her position. We know generally where she is, but we have not precisely fixed it.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT (ERROR)

Captain Crookshank: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question regarding the practice of the House, arising out of the reply by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs to Question No. 25 today, when he had, unfortunately, to admit that he had given an inaccurate answer during a debate—which, incidentally, had the result of curtailing that debate? Is it not the practice that when Ministers find that they have made a mistake, they should take an early opportunity of saying so in the House, whereas not only in this case has the Minister made no statement until Question Time today, but within the last fortnight exactly the same thing happened in connection with a reply by the Postmaster-General about the number of people who would be employed in dealing with certain accounts.
I should like to ask whether it is to be left to Private Members to find out if Ministers have made inaccurate or false statements and then to get an apology as a result of questioning them, or whether it is not the more normal course that as soon as Ministers find out that they have made mistakes—which everybody can make; I am not questioning that—it is their duty to come before the House and to take an early opportunity of saying so.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a question which I can be called upon to answer. All these matters must be matters for the Ministers concerned; I cannot lay down any rules about it.

Earl Winterton: Is it not, may I say with respect, Sir, the duty of the Chair to see that as far as possible Ministerial


responsibility is carried out? Ministers are responsible to the House, and if they fail in their responsibility who will deal with them, if not the Chair?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to have Ministers up "on the mat," so to speak. I cannot do that.

Earl Winterton: Do I understand from your last remark, Mr. Speaker, that if a Minister breaks a rule of the House, it is not for you to chide him?

Mr. Speaker: The noble Lord is exaggerating. I never said, and nobody suggested, that rules of the House were being broken. If anyone breaks a rule of the House, I deal with it; but this is not a rule, it is a matter of custom.

Mr. Dugdale: I should like to make it clear that I did not know that the statement in question was inaccurate until yesterday afternoon. That may be my fault, but I was not in any way intending to deceive the House.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

REPORT [10th April]

Resolutions reported.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put forthwith on each Resolution pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).

[For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 868–879.]

First Resolution—Hydrocarbon Oils (Customs and Excise)—read a Second time.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 289.

Division No. 73.]
AYES
[3.40 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Diamond, J.
Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)


Adams, Richard
Dodds, N. N.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Albu, A. H.
Donnelly, D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Dye, S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Janner, B.


Ayles, W. H.
Edelman, M.
Jay, D. P. T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Baird, J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Balfour, A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, R. H.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Bartley, P.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Ewart, R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Benn, Wedgwood
Fairhurst, F.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Benson, G.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Beswick, F.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Finch, H. J.
Keenan, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Kenyon, C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Follick, M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Foot, M. M.
King, Dr. H. M.


Boardman, H.
Forman, J. C.
Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.


Booth, A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Kinley, J.


Bottomley, A. G.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D


Bowden, H. W.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lang, Gordon


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Gibson, C. W.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gilzean, A.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Glanville, James (Consett)
Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Gooch, E. G.
Lindgren, G. S.


Burke, W. A.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Burton, Miss E.
Granville, Edgar (Eye)
Logan, D. G.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)


Callaghan, L. J.
Grenfell, D. R.
McAllister, G.


Carmichael, J.
Grey, C. F.
MacColl, J. E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McGhee, H. G.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McGovern, J.


Clunie, J.
Gunter, R. J.
McInnes, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mack, J. D.


Coldrick, W.
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Collick, P.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McLeavy, F.


Collindridge, F.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Cook, T. F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hamilton, W. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Cooper, John (Deptford)
Hannan, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Hardman, D. R.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Cove, W. G.
Hardy, E. A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hargreaves, A
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Crawley, A.
Harrison, J.
Manuel, A. C.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hastings, S.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Mathers, Rt. Hon G.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mellish, R. J.


Dairies, P.
Hobson, C. R.
Messer, F.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Homian, P.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Houghton, D.
Mitchison, G. R.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (M'ntg'mery)
Hoy, J.
Moeran, E. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hubbard, T.
Monslow, W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Moody, A. S.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Deer, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Motley, R.




Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Usborne, H.


Mort, D. L.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Vernon, W. F.


Moyle, A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Mulley, F. W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wallace, H. W.


Mulvey, A.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Watkins, T. E.


Murray, J. T.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)


Nally, W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Weitzman, D.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wells, William (Walsall)


O'Brien, T.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
West, D. G.


Oliver, G. H.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Padley, W. E.
Simmons, C. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Paget, R. T.
Slater, J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wigg, G.


Pannell, T. C.
Snow, J. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Pargiter, G. A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilkes, L.


Parker, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wilkins, W. A.


Paton, J.
Sparks, J. A.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Pearson, A.
Steele, T.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Peart, T. F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Poole, C.
Stokes, Rt Hon. R. R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Popplewell, E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Porter, G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don Valley)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire W.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Proctor, W. T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Pryde, D. J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Rankin, J.
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
Wise, F. J.


Rees, Mrs. D.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.


Reeves, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wyatt, W. L.


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Timmons, J.
Yates, V. F.


Rhodes, H.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G.
Younger, Hon. K.


Richards, R.
Tomney, F.



Robens, A.
Turner-Samuels, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Royle and Mr. Delargy.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Gates, Maj. E. E


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)
Glyn, Sir Ralph


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Arbuthnot, John
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cranborne, Viscount
Grimston, Robert (Westbury)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harden, J. R. E.


Astor, Hon. M. L.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Baker, P. A. D.
Crouch, R. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M.
Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Banks, Col C.
Cundiff, F. W.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Baxter, A. B.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bell, R. M.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hay, John


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Davidson, Viscountess
Head, Brig. A. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
de Chair, Somerset
Heald, Lionel


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
De la Bère, R.
Heath, Edward


Birch, Nigel
Deedes, W. F.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bishop, F. P.
Digby, S. W.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Black, C. W.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Donner, P. W.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Boothby, R.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bossom, A. C.
Drayson, G. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Boyle, Sir Edward
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hollis, M. C.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Dunglass, Lord
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Braine, B. R.
Duthie, W. S.
Hope, Lord John


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Gurney
Eccles, D. M.
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon Florence


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Erroll, F. J.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fisher, Nigel
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fort, R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.
Foster, John
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Butcher, H. W.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (SaffronWalden)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hurd, A. R.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Channon, H.
Gage, C. H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Hutchison, Colonel James (Glasgow)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Clyde, J. L.
Gammans, L. D.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.


Colegate, A.
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Jeffreys, General Sir George







Jennings, R.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Soames, Capt. C.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Spearman, A. C. M


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Kaberry, D.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)


Keeling, E. H.
Nabarro, G.
Stevens, G. P.


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Nicholls, Harmar
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Nicholson, G.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Storey, S.


Langford-Holt, J.
Nutting, Anthony
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Oakshott, H. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Leather, E. H. C.
Odey, G. W.
Studholme, H. G.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Summers, G. S.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Sutcliffe, H.


Lindsay, Martin
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Linstead, H. N.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Llewellyn, D.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Teeling, W.


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)
Osborne, C.
Teevan, T. L.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Peto, Brig C. H. M.
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Pickthorn, K.
Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)


Low, A. R. W.
Pitman, I. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Prescott, S.
Tilney, John


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Touche, G. C.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Turner, H. F. L.


McAdden, S. J.
Profumo, J. D.
Turton, R. H.


McCallum, Major D.
Raikes, H. V.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Redmayne, M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


McKibbin, A.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Vosper, D. F.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Renton, D. L. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maclay, Hon. John
Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Robson-Brown, W.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Roper, Sir Harold
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


MacPherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. L.
Watkinson, H.


Maitland, Cmdr, J. W.
Russell, R. S.
Webbe, Sir H. (London)


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Marples, A. E.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Scott, Donald
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Maude, Angus (Eating, S.)
Shepherd, William
Wills, G.


Maude, John (Exeter)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maudling, R.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wood, Hon. R.


Mellor, Sir John
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
York, C.


Molson, A. H. E.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)



Monckton, Sir Waller
Snadden, W. McN.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Drewe and Brigadier Mackeson.


Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

Fourth Resolution—Entertainments (Excise)—read a Second time.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 289.

Division No. 74]
AYES
[3.50 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Bins, G. H. C.
Carmichael, J.


Adams, H. R.
Blenkinsop, A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Albu, A. H.
Blyton, W. R.
Champion, A. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Boardman, H.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Booth, A.
Clunie, J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bottomley, A. G.
Cocks, F. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Bowden, H. W.
Coldrick, W.


Ayles, W. H.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Collick, P.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Collindridge, F.


Baird, J.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Cook, T. F.


Balfour, A.
Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cooper, John (Deptford)


Bartley, P.
Brown, George (Belper)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Cove, W. G.


Benn, Wedgwood
Burke, W. A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Benson, G.
Burton, Miss E.
Crawley, A.


Beswick, F.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Crosland, C. A. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Callaghan, L. J.
Crossman, R. H. S.




Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jenkins, R. H.
Rankin, J.


Darnel, P.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rees, Mrs. D.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Reeves, J.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Davies, Rt. Hn Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Richards, R.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Keenan, W.
Robens, A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Deer, G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Diamond, J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Dodds, N. N.
Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, [...])


Donnelly, D.
Kinley, J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)
Lang, Gordon
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dye, S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edelman, M.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)
Simmons C. J.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, J.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ewart, R.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Fairhurst, F.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Snow, J. W.


Fernyhough, E.
McAllister, G.
Sorensen R. W.


Field, Capt. W. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Finch, H. J.
Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)
Sparks, J. A.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Steele, T.


Follick, M.
McGovern, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Foot, M. M.
McInnes, J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Forman, J. C.
Mack, J. D.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Freeman, John (Watford)
McLeavy, F.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McNeil, Rt. Hon H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)


Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Glanville, James (Consett)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gooch, E. G.
Manuel, A. C.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, J.


Granville, Edgar (Eye)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mellish, R. J.
Tomney, F.


Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Grey, C. F.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian
Usborne, H.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Vernon, W. F.


Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Moeran, E. W.
Viant, S. P.


Gunter, R. J.
Monslow, W.
Wallace, H. W.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Moody, A. S.
Watkins, T. E.


Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morley, R.
Weitzman, D.


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mort, D. L.
West, D. G.


Hannan, W.
Moyle, A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hardman, D. R.
Mulley, F. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hardy, E. A.
Mulvey, A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hargreaves, A.
Murray, J. D.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Harrison, J.
Nally, W.
Wigg, G.


Hastings, S.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wilkes, L.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)
O'Brien, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Oldfield, W. H.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Hobson, C. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Holman, P.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Houghton, D.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hoy, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)


Hubbard, T.
Pannell, T. C.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parker, J.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paton, J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)
Pearson, A.
Wise, F. J.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Peart, T. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Poole, C.
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Popplewell, E.
Wyatt, W. L.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Porter, G.
Yates, V. F.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Younger, Hon. K.


Janner, B.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Younger, Hon. K.


Jay, D. P. T.
Proctor, W. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pryde, D. J.



Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Mr. Royle and Mr. Delargy.







NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Gage, C. H.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Alport, C. J. M
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maclay, Hon, John


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maclean, Filzroy


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gammans, L. D.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Arbuthnot, John
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarly)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)


Astor, Hon. M. L.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.


Baker, P. A. D.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
Marples, A. E.


Banks, Col. C.
Harden, J. R. E.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Baxter, A. B.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Bell, R. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maude, John (Exeter)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harvey, A[...]. Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maudling R.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Harvie-Walt, Sir George
Mellor, Sir John


Birch, Nigel
Hay, John
Molson, A. H. E.


Bishop, F. P.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Monckton, Sir Walter


Black, C. W.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Moore, Lt.-Col., Sir Thomas


Boles, Li-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Heald, Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Boothby, R.
Heath, Edward
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Bossom, A. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nabarro, G.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholson, G.


Braine, B. R.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Gurney
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nutting, Anthony


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hollis, M. C.
Oakshott, H. D.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Odey, G. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hope, Lord John
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Ormby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Butcher, H. W.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Osborne, C.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Channon, H.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hudson, W. R. A (Hull, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Pickthorn, K.


Clyde, J. L.
Hurd, A. R.
Pitman, I. J.


Colegate, A.
Hulchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W)
Prescott, S.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)
Hutchison, Colonel James
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hyde, Lt.-Col H. M.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Profumo, J. D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jeffreys, General Sir George
Raikes, H. V.


Cranborne, Viscount
Jennings, R.
Rayner, Brig. R


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Johnson, Major Howard (Kemptown)
Redmayne, M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Remnant, Hon. P


Crouch, R. F.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Renton, D. L. M.


Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Kaberry, D.
Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)


Cundiff, F. W.
Kerr. H. W. (Cambridge)
Robson-Brown, W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Darting, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Davidson, Viscountess
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. L


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Langford-Holt, J.
Russell, R. S.


de Chair, Somerset
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


De la Bère, R.
Leather, E. H. C.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Deedes, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D


Digby, S. W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lindsay, Martin
Scott, Donald


Donner, P. W.
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, William


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Llewellyn, D.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Dunglass, Lord
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Duthie, W. S.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Snadden, W. McN.


Eccles, D. M.
Low, A. R. W.
Soames, Capt. C


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Fisher, Nigel
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)


Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Low, A. R. W.
Stevens, G. P.


Fort, R.
McAdden, S. J.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Foster, John
McCallum, Major D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Storey, S.


Fyfa, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McKibbin, A.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)







Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Tilney, John
Watkinson, H.


Studholme, H. G
Touche, G. C.
Webbe, Sir Harold


Summers, G. S.
Turner, H. F. L.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Sutcliffe, H.
Turton, R. H.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Teeling, W.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Teevan, T. L.
Vosper, D. F.
Wills, G.


Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Wood, Hon. R.


Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
York, C.


Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)



Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Drewe and Brigadier Mackeson


Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the sum of five hundred and thirty-five million pounds for the permanent annual charge for the National Debt for the current financial year, instead of the sum of three hundred and fifty-five million pounds.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

[16th April]

Resolution reported:
That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt (including the sinking funds therefor), Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), with or without amendment of the law relating to purchase tax of the following descriptions:—

(a) amendments to exempt from tax, or charge with tax at the first or second rate (instead of a higher rate), goods comprised in Group 4, 11, 12 or 31 and now chargeable at the first rate, or goods comprised in Group 5 or 6 and now chargeable at the first or second rate, or goods comprised in Group 23 and now chargeable at the first, second or third rate, but so as not to prejudice the power of the Treasury to make orders under section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1948:

(b) amendments to make provision for the giving to the Treasury of advice and assistance in the exercise of the said power by a body to be constituted for the purpose, and for the powers and duties in that behalf of that body and other subordinate matters.

Resolution read a Second time.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and the Resolution reported from the Committee on Finance [Money], and agreed to this day, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Edwards and Mr. Douglas Jay.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

"to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law with respect to the National Debt (including the Sinking Funds therefor), Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise)," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

Orders of the Day — REVEREND J. G. MacMANAWAY'S INDEMNITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.11 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is intended to indemnify Mr. J. G. MacManaway for the fact that he sat in this House and in the House of Commons of Northern Ireland as a Member of this House and of that House, whereas in truth and in fact he was not a Member at all. I feel that I ought rather to appear in a white sheet about this Bill. Although I did advise the House that the matter was so doubtful that it ought to go to the Privy Council for advice, I expressed the tentative view that Mr. MacManaway was qualified to sit as a Member of the House. If I had been right on that, there would have been no need to occupy the time of Parliament with this Bill. But on applying to the department of white sheets, I found that demand had already been so great that there were none left.
For instance, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) had already acquired his. So had the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The truth is that there were only four lawyers who, as the result shows, were right about this case; and here I disagree with what the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby said on a previous occasion. It is no use for a lawyer to say that "the man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." It is the result which counts, whether it is in a case where all the members of the Privy Council agree about something, or where all the members of a jury disagree about something.
Judged by that standard there were only four lawyers in this House who were right about this matter. The first of them was my right hon. Friend who now holds the office of Foreign Secretary. He always took a robust view about this matter.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: He is not a lawyer.

The Attorney-General: I have described him deliberately as a lawyer. I have come to the conclusion that he is

one of the best lawyers in the House. I do not say that he enjoys the professional qualifications which the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby and I possess, but he showed on this occasion that he had the instincts of a lawyer—of a kind. He took the view that the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, 1801, meant what it said. That, I agree with the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), is a very unorthodox view for any lawyer to take. But that is the view that the right hon. Gentleman took.
Then I must say—and it is right that I should say so, and I say it seriously—that the learned Clerk of the House took the same view although, quite properly, he did not fully advise the Committee on the matter. I think it is only right to say that he indicated quite clearly what his view was when he assisted the Committee which was dealing with the matter. Then, of course, there was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) for whom the eventual result of all this has been, as I said on a previous occasion, a considerable personal triumph. These hon. and right hon. Gentlemen did not require any white sheets at all.
On the other hand, the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby took exactly the opposite view. He took the robust legal view that the words in the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act meant exactly the opposite of what they said. I am afraid that I took, and expressed, a more timid, and perhaps typical, legal opinion by saying that I really did not know what the words meant. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition characteristically took up the position, in effect, that whatever the words meant, Mr. MacManaway ought to sit here. In the end, the House took my advice, and the matter was referred to the Privy Council which heard argument, including argument by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch.
The Privy Council decided, on reasoning which with great respect I thought quite unanswerable, that Mr. MacManaway was disqualified from sitting as a Member because he was an ordained clergyman. He sat for a time in this House. One cannot accuse him of having sat in bad faith, because, after


all, there was a great deal of doubt, to say the least, about what the position was. If we lawyers in the House were not sure about it perhaps we cannot blame him for not having been certain. At all events, he sat for a time in this House and for a longer period in the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, and he discharged the duties of a Member until the time came when the matter was referred to the Privy Council. Their advice was given to this House, and this House accepted that advice.
In those circumstances, we think it right—as we said at the time of the reference to the Privy Council we would think it right if the Privy Council came to the view which eventually it reached—to move this Bill whereby he should be indemnified against any legal actions, if any be brought against him. So far as I know, no such action has been brought against him and, to some extent, therefore, the Bill is merely for the sake of caution.
Some question was raised about the fact that, at a time when the matter was pending in the Privy Council, Mr. MacManaway came back and voted here in a Division. I must confess that I took the view at that time that it was most improper, and perhaps illegal, for him to do so; but on further research into the matter—and I want to say this with great respect—I came to the conclusion that the advice given to Mr. Speaker about it was perfectly right and that Mr. MacManaway was legally entitled to sit until a decision of this House had been given. Whether he should sit or not is a matter of taste, and we do not deal with matters of taste in Indemnity Bills.
I think it right to mention that, because this Bill extends to cover the occasion on which he sat and voted on that day. Accordingly, I ask the House to say that this is a proper case in which Mr. MacManaway should be indemnified against any possible legal consequence by way of common informer's action, either in our courts or in those of Northern Ireland, for the penal consequences which follow from sitting as a Member when in fact one is not a Member at all.

4.20 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: The only reason why I do not join in the frenzied search for laundry wear in which the learned Attorney-General has indulged is that I have already done so on a previous occasion, and, if I were to flaunt the same white sheet, there might be some remarks about whether its whiteness was still unstained. I must confess that my legal pride has been duly humbled, and that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) was entitled to the verbal ballet over my erroneous opinions in which he amicably indulged on the last occasion when we discussed this matter. However, the Bill which is before us today is really the consequence of the decision taken by the House on 19th October, 1950, and the statements made by right hon. Gentlemen on that occasion. Of course, we shall naturally and gracefully give every facility to assist its passage.
There is only one matter, which I hope the House will not think is technical, but which seems to me to be worthy of bringing to the attention of the House, and that is with regard to the recitals of the Bill. This Bill contains a rather unusual feature in a modern public Bill, and one sees the reasons for it, but it will be noted that, after reciting that Mr. MacManaway was declared elected, the second recital goes on to state that
on the seventeenth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty, the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council, upon a reference made by Order in Council pursuant to an Address presented by the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, advised His Majesty that the said James Godfrey MacManaway, having been ordained as a priest
was disabled. It did give me some concern that the recital stopped there, and did not go on to state that there was a Resolution of this House by which Mr. MacManaway was declared to be disabled from sitting. The reason why I mention that—and I will not, of course, place reliance on words of my own used in that debate—is because the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in his speech, said this:
May I say how much I agree with the first resonant sentence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), when he pointed out that this House has always preserved for itself the right to say who shall and who shall not be


a Member of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 2272.]
Therefore, I think there is something to be said, and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider it.
There is obviously no party significance or any significance at all in our legal arguments on the point whether it would not be better to include the Resolution of this House in order to make it quite clear that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cannot say who is to be a Member of this House, and also to prevent anyone in the future suggesting that as a precedent for this House being required to consult the Judicial Committee before deciding who shall be a Member. The Government draftsmen may have felt that, as we were going to deal with the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, there was an argument the other way, but I feel that it is of much importance, because the learned Attorney-General will know how these precedents are built up by looking up and trying to read a significance into things that have happened in the past.
I hope that the Government will consider interposing another recital after the second one and before coming to the question of Northern Ireland. That would meet the point, and would not show any disrespect to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. I therefore hope that the House will think that that is a point worthy of consideration, because that control by the House of its own membership is something of which we are all very jealous and proud.
I do not want to light up the ashes of our ancient fires, if I may slightly change the quotation, but I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch will be reassured on one point. As I understood his speech to which I listened with great attention, on 19th October, 1950, the hon. and learned Gentleman was rather afraid that the position in the Church which Mr. MacManaway had held had been a matter which had influenced the election in the Division, apart from any political differences. I think he will now be reassured on that point, since the election which took place afterwards secured the return of a Member of the same party, and, so far as I know, there were no ecclesiastical connections in his case.

Mr. Bing: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but, surely, he will agree that there was a most substantial drop in the majority?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to that, but I hope that he will allow us the same point when we discuss any other by-elections that have taken place in the last three months. However, I think that point is a matter on which the electors have given their decision and which they have solved.
There is only one other point to which I think everyone in the House would expect me to make reference and which should be kept in mind, and that is the question of an inquiry into the position of clerics, which point I developed, I am afraid at some length, in addressing the House on 19th October. I hasten to assure the House that I am not going to take up any of those points of ecclesiastical history, on which the hon. and learned Gentleman enlarged, or give any interesting examples of anomalies outside ecclesiastical spheres which existed and which undoubtedly still exist. The position was left in this way. Going through the usual motions preparatory to the withdrawal of an Amendment, I said, referring to the Home Secretary:
If the right hon. Gentleman will give us the undertaking that a body will be established—I am not asking him to tie himself to the body"—
and that was, of course, a body to inquire into these anomalies—
then I should ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment. I must, however, ask the Home Secretary to go as far as that, because otherwise—"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 2276.]

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not see what all this has to do with this Bill. It is quite another subject, which could be discussed at some other time. Even the question, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred before, concerning the by-election in West Belfast, has not, as far as I can see, anything to do with this Bill.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry if I have appeared to trespass, but may I just put this point to you, Mr. Speaker, with all deference? I assure you that I shall not attempt to press it. What I was going to submit was that this Bill is, of


course, in consequence of that debate, in which an undertaking was given that the matter would be inquired into. It was on that undertaking that we agreed to the course that was taken. I only wanted to point out—and I assure you that I shall not go beyond that—that our acceptance of the position today is in the hope, and, indeed, the expectation, that the undertaking which I have quoted will be carried out. I do not want to go any further than that, but I think the whole House felt, irrespective of their view on the individual gentleman who has been discussed, that the continuance of these anomalies would be a regrettable matter, and that, with all the difficulties of the international and domestic situation today, this problem of our own, and, as I said, the problem of seeing that the Mother of Parliaments is not the foster mother of anomalies, would not be forgotten, but would be considered by the Government.

Mr. Snow: With reference to the guidance which you have just given us, Mr. Speaker, on the conduct of debate, are we to understand from what you have said that we are prohibited in this debate from considering the circumstances in which Mr. MacManaway was selected as a candidate, and whether he should be indemnified in those circumstances?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, most certainly. That is quite outside the scope of this debate. We have only to be satisfied that he was properly elected a Member here. We are not entitled to inquire into the circumstances, and that I must rule completely out of order.

Mr. Leslie Hale: May I seriously present this point, which is important? When the matter was discussed in the House, we were told that we could have a fuller discussion of it on Second Reading. What we are discussing today is a Bill which proposes to indemnify the Reverend Mr. MacManaway for a series of votes in this House, both before and after the matter was referred to the Judicial Committee, and for a series of votes in the Northern Ireland House of Commons extending over a period of four years. With respect, Sir, I submit that the position in the Northern Ireland House is wholly different from that in this House, and that this House

must control it. The Northern Ireland Parliament has not followed the rule of this House and disqualified Mr. MacManaway. In the circumstances, therefore, I think it eminently relevant and important that we should have a full opportunity of discussing the whole of the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: I think not. I must rule against that. We are, after all, only concerned with this gentleman who had already been elected. How he was elected is nothing to do with us. We are satisfied that he was properly elected and became a Member. We have decided he is not a Member. We are only concerned with what is in this Bill.

Mr. Hale: I am respectfully submitting that, in view of the fact that the Northern Ireland House of Commons have not followed our decision and have not declared Mr. MacManaway disqualified, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18 (2) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which clearly indicates, and has been accepted as indicating, that any disqualification to this House automatically applies to the Northern Ireland House, there are very difficult circumstances which follow the passage of this Bill which ought to be discussed on Second Reading and on the Committee stage, and which, in the interest of Mr. MacManaway himself, ought to be clarified in this debate. I submit that this is a very important matter.

Mr. Speaker: The Northern Ireland Parliament is a self-governing body. We are not entitled to discuss what it does. I believe that the Reverend Mr. MacManaway resigned—he was told to resign. That is a decision of a body which is powerful by itself, and in whose decision we have no right to interfere. I must rule all reference to the Northern Ireland Parliament out of order.

Mr. Hale: With great respect, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled it out of order, and, therefore, it must be out of order. I have considered the matter beforehand, and I say that any discussions on the conduct of the Northern Ireland Parliament are not in order on this Bill. That is my Ruling. If hon. Members do not like it, let them put down a Motion challenging my Ruling. There it is.

Mr. Snow: I would never challenge your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but there are some who are new to this House and do not know the niceties of debate. We are discussing whether Mr. MacManaway should be indemnified or not, and we ought to know whether or not he deliberately flouted the constitutional procedure of this Parliament. Some of us think he did. Should we not, therefore, discuss the circumstances in which he was nominated.

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought not; I should have thought we ought to discuss his conduct here about voting after being warned. As regards his flouting the House, and so on, as the right hon. and learned Attorney-General said, he was no doubt advised one way and another. It was a genuine mistake on his part, which we must accept.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: There is just one aspect of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on which I personally would be grateful for a little further guidance. It is this. In so far as your Ruling applied to the Reverend Mr. MacManaway's conduct in this House and his indemnification against any consequences of that, I find it, with respect, very easy to follow what you have said. But the Bill deals with more than that; the Bill extends to indemnify him not only against penalties which otherwise he would have incurred by reason of his votes in this House, but extends also to his conduct in the House of Northern Ireland. Therefore, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, I find it a little difficult to follow your Ruling that we are concerned here only with what he did here. The Bill, quite plainly, is not concerned only with what he did here, or with penalties arising from that alone.

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that was fairly clear. One could, of course, quite legitimately object to his being indemnified in the Northern Ireland Parliament, but that does not necessarily mean that one has to discuss the decision of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Such an objection might be good grounds for objecting to this Bill.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: There is very little more with which I want to trouble the House. I only want to say one word on the question of Mr. MacManaway's position and on the suggestion that he

was flouting the House. One can only say that he received advice after careful consideration of the point, and that that advice, after attracting a considerable amount of legal support, was rejected. That is the reason for his present position. One can only say that he is in the position of litigants who are unfortunate enough to receive advice which is given to them after serious consideration, but which is proved to be wrong. In those circumstances, as I have already indicated, the Opposition support the Government on this Bill.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Bing: Before I starts on the few remarks I want to make to the House, I think it proper that I should declare, so to speak, my interest in this matter. I was employed on behalf of the Treasury Solicitor to argue the matter before the Privy Council, and I have also given certain advice in regard to what might be possible consequences in Northern Ireland in regard to the position there.
I am sure the House will excuse me if I do not, like the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), express any of my own views as to the decision of the Privy Council, and if, when I come to support him on the point which he made, and with which I thoroughly agree, I merely make this point, without trespassing on the Northern Ireland position, that if we declare in this House that we have come to a conclusion, as I understand the Government of Northern Ireland have, which clarifies the qualifications of Members of the Northern Ireland House, that will automatically govern the Members there.
I think it is very desirable that this House should follow the usual tradition of generosity in this matter. There are 145 Acts against which anyone might easily offend—one Scottish, 10 Irish, and so on. Therefore, I am very glad that the Government have decided not to follow the precedent set by the Conservative Opposition on the occasion of the last reference to the Privy Council, because on that occasion, when a case was referred to the Privy Council and a Bill of Indemnity was brought in, the Conservative Opposition put before the welfare of the Member concerned the rights of the common informer, and set


down a Motion to the effect that a common informer should not be deprived of his just rewards. In consequence of that Motion the Bill of Indemnity was never passed on any occasion. The fact that we have departed from that is a matter upon which His Majesty's Government may be congratulated.
But I am sure the House would be wrong were we to depart from the standards of indemnity laid down by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), among others, when we were discussing the Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham Elections (Validation) Bill. With great respect, that Measure was entirely parallel with this one and, therefore, how we approach this Measure depends on the rules we adopted in dealing with the other Measure.

Earl Winterton: I cannot follow the hon. Member's description. It may be correct. When was that occasion when the Conservative Party are alleged to have acted in the way the hon. Member has just described?

Mr. Bing: In 1913 there was a member of the Liberal Party, Sir Stuart Samuel, who committed a purely technical offence. The bank of which he happened to be a director was not a limited company and as it had some slight dealings with the Government, he was disqualified, after he had been advised by the Attorney-General of the day that he was in the right. On behalf of the Conservative Party someone whom I think we all respect for his moral rectitude, Lord Hugh Cecil—Lord Quickswood as he now is—put down a Motion on behalf of the Conservative Party saying—I have not the exact words with me—that the right of the common informer must come first. Such was the position that they were not able to go further, and I am glad we have not followed that precedent. Perhaps I may leave it at that, because I have a number of points I wish to make.
The noble Lord the Member for Horsham when discussing the Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham Elections (Validation) Bill in 1946, laid down certain rules, one of which was that on no occasion must a member vote when he knows he is disqualified. What is more, with all the assurance of a former Deputy-Speaker

of this House, the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) suggested that even though a Member had voted inadvertently, not knowing he was disqualified, it was his duty to apologise. When it was pointed out to the hon. Member for Torquay that the man was not a Member and could not attend, he said his proper course was to write to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Charles Williams: When did I make that statement?

Mr. Bing: The hon. Member will find it in Volume 420 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate on that Bill.

Mr. Williams: Surely that case was rather a long while ago, was it not?

Mr. Bing: There were some very serious speeches made from the other side of the House condemning the actions of hon. Members on this side. These are immutable principles and not ones that applied in 1946 and do not apply now.

Earl Winterton: I am afraid the hon. Member is putting you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the House in some difficulty about this. If he is quoting the instance of the Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham Elections (Validation) Bill procedure, I submit we are entitled to debate that. As far as I recollect, the matters at issue there were completely different from the matters at issue here. Mr. Speaker has just ruled that this must be a very narrow debate. Possibly if the hon. Member is going to deal with that matter, I shall ask permission later on—as I was brought into it—to deal with it. I should have thought it was clearly outside the ambit of this Bill.

Mr. Bing: Obviously nobody in the House wants the debate to go too wide. The point I make is that on the previous Bill we made a decision upon the principle whether we should indemnify an hon. Member or not, and we should follow that principle in this Bill. The House should be consistent and not indemnify Labour Members under one strict principle and Conservative Members under another principle. This Indemnity Bill differs from any Indemnity Bill in the last 300 years. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General or the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby will correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is the


first time this House has ever been invited to indemnify a Member who voted in a debate when his case was under consideration by order of the House.
If we are to agree—and I hope some of my hon. Friends will agree—to pass this Bill, if we are to agree to indemnify Mr. MacManaway, we are entitled to a statement from hon. Members opposite on how he came to vote. If one reads Press reports of the circumstances in which he came to vote, Mr. MacManaway said that he had received a telegram from someone asking him to come and vote. I will give way to any hon. Gentleman who says he sent it. We had a long debate once about who put their names to a telegram. The point is whether he just said, "I do not mind what the House has done, I am going to vote," or whether he voted under pressure. In my view he voted under pressure, and it is for that reason that I advise such of my hon. Friends as follow me in this matter to vote for the Bill. If no hon. Member opposite is going to get up and say, "I did this," the House will have to form its own judgment as to what steps it should take.
I think the second point we ought to consider is the conduct which has taken place since the date when we originally dealt with this question because that, of course, is a highly material point in relation to whether or not we should pass this Bill. Originally we understood this Bill would be introduced within a very short space of time after we had dealt with the original Motion. The Bill was held up for some reason. It would be interesting to know whether, for instance, it was held up on behalf of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.
The main point is that in that interval of time Mr. MacManaway himself made a number of pronouncements on the conduct of this House. If we are to indemnify a Member—[Interruption.]—I remember the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) saying that it was always valuable to fortify the Treasury. It is not possible for me to do that for the moment, but I do not see why, if I am a little hoarse, I should not drink some water and make myself audible even to an hon. Member who represents Northern Ireland.
The conduct of Mr. Macmanaway in that interval is a most important matter, because if he were himself in contempt of us, it would be very doubtful whether this House ought to pass a Bill of indemnity. Let me put the argument in another form. Mr. MacManaway has alleged—and so, indeed, has the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland—that he was treated most unjustly by this House.

Mr. Gage: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Can it be in order for the hon. and learned Member to discuss what happened alter Mr. MacManaway vacated his seat and which the hon. and learned Member alleges was a contempt of this House. If it was a contempt of this House after he had vacated his seat, it should then have been raised as a matter of Privilege. It cannot affect the question now.

Mr. Bing: I do not want to get out of order or to take unfair advantage of hon. Members opposite, but if there is a suggestion by Mr. Macmanaway that this House acted grossly unjustly towards him, then we ought to look at the Bill very closely to make certain that we have made up for all that injustice.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): A point of order has been addressed to me. It seems to me that the House is entitled to consider the conduct of the gentleman concerned while he was sitting in this House.

Mr. Gage: I understood you to say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it appeared to you that we could discuss the conduct of this gentleman while he was a Member of the House. As I understood it, however, the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is seeking to discuss his conduct after he ceased to be a Member of the House.

Earl Winterton: The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch said he was going to prove that Mr. MacManaway was in contempt of this House. That is a technical phrase; it means that he had committed, or in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member had committed, a breach of Privilege. I submit that it is impossible to discuss such a matter except on a substantive Motion. In other words, if the hon. Member wishes to bring such a


charge, he must raise the matter with the Chair, and if the Chair decides that there is not a prima facie case, then he is entitled to put down a Motion. He has no right to say that a Member is in contempt of the House except on a substantive Motion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Lord's submission.

Mr. Bing: We are on difficult ground here, because the gentleman we are discussing was never a Member of this House, and if one looks at Mr. Speaker's Ruling on the Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham Bill—on which I am basing myself very carefully in what I say—one will see that Mr. Speaker was careful to point out, after some discussion, that the hon. Members who were concerned should be referred to by name and not as hon. Members, because, in fact, they were not Members of the House. We are thus discussing someone who was never a Member of this House but has some relation to it.
It is, therefore, proper that we should look into this Bill to see that he is properly compensated if a gross injustice has been done to him, which is, after all, alleged by very responsible people like the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland. I do not know, for example, whether my right hon. and learned Friend has considered the question of Mr. MacManaway's salary when he was a Member of this House. I hope the House will see that he draws his salary. It is an odd fact that while Mr. MacManaway is being paid a salary for never having been a Member of this House, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Mulvey) who, through over-conscientious scruples, stays away, is not entitled to one. But that is by the way.
I was proposing to examine, with the respect that one ought to give to the views of any Attorney-General or any ex-Attorney-General, the charges which have been made against this House in regard to Mr. MacManaway by the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, and by Mr. MacManaway himself, so as to see whether they are justified and, if they are justified, to make certain that this Bill has made up for the injustice we have done to Mr. MacManaway.

Mr. Logan: Can we discuss the question of a

non-Member and say that we should give him compensation for services that he has never rendered, or that he is entitled to salary?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is going too wide. The Bill is really a very simple one and it seems to me that, while the House is fully entitled to discuss the conduct of the Member concerned in so far as it affects whether or not he should be given an indemnity, all these other matters are very remote from that question.

Mr. Bing: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think the position is otherwise. What we are doing here is giving a Second Reading to a Bill. What we are concerned with is whether the Bill contains sufficient provisions for the indemnification of Mr. MacManaway? Whether or not the Bill should contain a Clause which would provide for indemnifying those who have paid him his salary, seems to be a very material question which we should consider when we come to the later stages of the Bill, and we might ask whether you would be good enough, if you were then the occupant of the Chair, to accept a manuscript Amendment to that effect.
At the moment I want only to examine the question whether Mr. MacManaway was justly or unjustly treated, and if the House does not wish me to refer to what was said by the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, then I will leave it. I want to remind the House only of this: he, of course, spoke in those measured tones and reasoned terms which one would expect of an Attorney-General. He was really putting forward the arguments which had been adduced by a great many other persons in Northern Ireland, including Mr. MacManaway, in much less measured terms.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order! I cannot see that the remarks of the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland can have any effect on the Bill.

Mr. Bing: If you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, take the same view of his legal views as I do, then I will not put them before the House. I will turn immediately to what Mr. MacManaway himself said on the matter, but I would remind the House that on 23rd November, some five days before the election, to say that proceedings in his case had been unjust or grossly


unjust, had been condemned by this House without any opposition as a contempt. Mr. MacManaway said, in a letter which was printed in the election address of the hon. Member who now sits for Belfast, West (Mr. Teevan):
This is a great personal sorrow to me and I feel a gross injustice to the Loyalists of West Belfast.
I shall not read the whole of this letter, for it deals with general Christian principles which are perhaps out of place in this debate, but he then invited the electors of West Belfast to do something "to avenge the injustice which has been perpetrated on myself."
It would be very wrong if we were to condemn Mr. MacManaway because a letter was circulated without his authority by somebody else at the period of the election with the purpose of influencing the election. We all take as favourable a view as we can of the character of anybody who has been associated with this House, for however short a time, and I believe Mr. MacManaway himself asked, as soon as he knew that such a statement had been condemned, for this letter to be withdrawn. I think we ought to hear from the hon. Member for Belfast, West, whether, in fact, that was so.

Mr. Teevan: Before I comment on this, I should like to say I have never heard such a disgraceful performance. Imputations have been cast not only against myself—after all, that is legitimate; I am a Member of this House and can defend myself—but also against people who have no right of audience here. That is not the action of a Christian gentleman, as the hon. and learned Member poses to be. At no time did Mr. MacManaway withdraw that letter.

Mr. Bing: In that case we are faced with this situation—that we ought to consider—

Sir Hugh O'Neill: You ruled just now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Teevan), that it would not be in order to discuss anything Mr. MacManaway said or did after he ceased to be a Member of this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was not a Member."] That is what Mr. Deputy-Speaker said. I submit that what you obviously meant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—was,

whether he was a Member of the House or not, nothing should be mentioned here regarding what he said or did after the decision of the House that he was not a Member. Now the hon. and learned Member is bringing up a whole lot of matters about what Mr. MacManaway is supposed to have said after the House decided he was disqualified. It seems to me contrary to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Bill proposes to give an indemnity to this gentleman for his action in sitting and voting as a Member of this House. That is the question before the House. Unless one laid down some rule it would be impossible to draw a line anywhere, and we could go back to the earliest days of this gentleman. Therefore, I think the matter must be limited to the period during which Mr. MacManaway sat in the House.

Mr. Bing: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there are two questions before the House. Surely, one is whether or not Mr. MacManaway has been treated unjustly, because that is the question which the House sincerely ought to resolve. If, in fact, he has been treated unjustly we may have to put more in the Bill, and certainly we must pass it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The question is not whether this gentleman was treated unjustly. The question is whether the House and this Parliament should give him indemnity for sitting and voting in the House. That is the position.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I submit this for your consideration, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The House is being asked—and, maybe, quite properly—to relieve this gentleman from heavy penalties which he has, by law, incurred. Before I give my vote as to whether he should be so indemnified am I not bound to consider all his conduct in relation to that matter—provided it is in relation to that matter—whenever it occurred? Otherwise, how can I possibly come to a proper judgment on the question I am being invited to judge?

Mr. Bing: Naturally I accept the formulation which you put, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and bow at once to your Ruling, and the only thing I regret is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) is not


here to profit by my example in that. Of course, we must not decide absolutely whether he was treated justly or unjustly, but if I may repeat again the argument put before the House by the Father of the House, the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), I would recall that he said—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. These matters are really quite remote—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—from the Bill. Mr. Speaker has given certain Rulings. It is my duty to follow them as far as I can. I have indicated that the Bill is a comparatively simple one, and that all these other matters are very remote, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman must confine himself to the justification, or otherwise, of giving an indemnity to this gentleman.

Mr. Bing: Having accepted your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what I was going to do was to quote—naturally, paying a very proper tribute to the Father of the House—the argument which was used first by him in the Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham case.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we have really heard enough about that.

Hon. Members: No.

Earl Winterton: I should be ready to discuss it in a two-day debate if the Government would give us time to discuss the Camberwell, Bristol case; but it is out of order to discuss it now.

Mr. Bing: With very great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if the noble Lord did not make his interjections, I should be less induced to introduce anything irrelevant. However, leaving all that aside, and leaving aside what was enunciated in a Bill or in a debate, I suggest that the House should remember that the principle it adopts in dealing with a Bill of this nature is taking to itself the privilege to exempt from the conditions of the law, the operation of the law, what is done by those who are associated with us. That is a liberty that is not given to the ordinary man in the street. The ordinary man who commits a crime cannot say, "There are very special circumstances in my case. Would the Attorney-General please introduce an indemnity Bill?"
In those circumstances we should be very careful that those in whose favour

we exercise this privilege and introduce these Bills—we ought to be quite certain that those to whom we give this right—are pepole who are deserving of that right. Unless the House takes that view then we are merely saying that anything that is done wrong, any offence by any Member of the House or anyone associated with the House, however exaggerated at a later stage, must never be taken into consideration in passing an Act of Indemnity. That would be a monstrous principle for the House to adopt, and we must, therefore, strictly regard the right when we are dealing with these matters.
In my respectful submission that does not absolve us from the duty of deciding whether or not Mr. MacManaway was treated justly or unjustly. If, for example, he came here knowing full well that he was disqualified, that would be an argument for not passing the Bill; if, on the other hand, he came here fully believing that he was qualified, that would be an argument for passing it. Therefore, we must weigh all these arguments side by side.
We do not know, of course, what advice Mr. MacManaway was given as to his qualifications or his disqualification. There is one fact which is perfectly apparent—that he could not have been advised by anybody when he stood for election that he was bound to be disqualified. Because if there is one place that any lawyer goes to look for the law about disqualification, it is to the draft Bill which was prepared by order of the predecessor to Mr. Speaker's counsel, Mr. Pulling, then Editor of the Revised Statutes, and that draft Bill, which was described by Lord Simon, when Lord Chancellor, as a marvel of ingenuity and exactness, sets out that a clergyman of the Church of Ireland is disqualified, Mr. Pulling may very well have been wrong. We may argue on that. But it is quite certain that Mr. MacManaway must have known, when he went forward to his election, that he might be disqualified; and that is a very relevant point that we ought to bear in mind in dealing with this matter.
I hope I shall have your indulgence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the indulgence of the House in this matter. During the election that took place all sorts of personal charges were made against me of ill faith and of bad faith. Out of respect


for this House and the legal situation. I did not answer, but I hope I shall have the indulgence of the House in just saying this, that I hope the House will agree with me that every possible step was taken to bring Mr. MacManaway's position before his eyes before he ever was nominated to stand at all for this House. For that purpose I should just like to refer the House for one moment to a report contained in the "Belfast Telegraph," which sets out the fact, first of all, that Mr. MacManaway had heard from me that he was possibly disqualified. Then it goes on to say this:
While it has not been finally decided whether he is eligible to go to Westminster, the probability is that, if successful in the contest, Parliament would pass an Indemnity Act.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Bing: I hope we shall hear some of the Northern Ireland Members dealing with this suggestion that Mr. MacManaway was going forward irrespective of whether he thought he was disqualified or not, in the hope that the good nature of this party would pass an Act of Indemnity, or that, in the event of the other side coming in, party interest would secure it. I am quite certain that so far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, that is untrue, and that would not be so.
But we are not concerned with what Mr. MacManaway thought about the morals of his own party. We are concerned with his attitude of mind when he approached this question. In those circumstances, I cannot see how he can possibly say that he was unjustly treated. How was he unjustly treated? I will just add this. Although I hesitate even to refer to another Bill before the House, when there was before the House another Bill dealing with indemnification in July, 1949, when he was adopted as a candidate, I called attention to Mr. MacManaway's case and suggested to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should include a Clause to make it clear that he was qualified. They did not take that opportunity. In fact, when my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) suggested postponing the stages of the Bill in order that an alteration could be made, he found no support at all among hon. Gentlemen

opposite. How can Mr. MacManaway say that in those circumstances he was treated unjustly?
What is the other possibility of his unjust treatment? Is it being said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that we should pass this Bill and indemnify Mr. MacManaway because the laws against clergymen are particularly unfair and unjust? Is that what is being said? I, personally, would like to see clergymen of all denominations in this House. But an Irish clergyman cannot stand for any parish council; he is prohibited by law from being even a parish councillor, let alone an urban district councillor, a county councillor, or anything of that sort.

Professor Savory: May I point out that that law was imposed upon Ireland by the British Government long before the Parliament of Northern Ireland was set up?

Mr. Bing: I do not want to answer that interruption, except to say that, were the Ulster Members of the present day in the House at that time, no doubt they would have voted in a different way from that in which their predecessors did, who all supported the Measure in 1925, when we in this Parliament abolished the restriction upon clergymen standing for municipal office—

Earl Winterton: On a point of order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has now got on to the subject of whether clergy can or cannot stand for local government in Ireland. May I, therefore, ask you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? When some of us come to speak—and it looks to me as if this Bill will not go through today; so many subjects have been introduced and will have to be discussed that the Government will probably have to ask for another day—shall we be in order in arguing the subject of clergymen taking part in local government in Ireland?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is endeavouring to say that Mr. MacManaway came to this House knowing that he was not entitled to do so, and that one of the factors supporting that view was the fact that he knew he could not be elected similarly to a local authority. I do not think I can say that


that is wholly irrelevant, but it is a matter for the House what value they attach to it.

Earl Winterton: May I say, with respect, that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Major Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) was speaking, when he made a reference to the election, Mr. Speaker said he was sorry to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend, but we could not discuss, on this Bill, the question of the election. I suggest, with respect, that that is exactly what the hon. and learned Gentleman is now doing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With all respect to the noble Lord, that really is not the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not discussing the circumstances of the election. He is discussing the qualifications for election, which is, at any rate, one of the factors in this matter.

Mr. Ring: I apologise to the House because—how it is I do not know—I always have a different recollection of what Mr. Speaker says about any matter from that of the noble Lord. Therefore, while I always appreciate that I am wrong in every case. I do try to persuade myself to follow his judgment. I say only this about the noble Lord, that he does make Mr. Speaker a little inconsistent in his Rulings.
Let me return to the point I was making. There surely can be no injustice in saying that someone is not entitled to come here as a clergyman when the Northern Ireland Parliament—and here I give the answer to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory)—themselves failed to follow the principles laid down by this Parliament and repeal in 1925 the disqualification of clergymen sitting on municipal councils. There can therefore be no injustice, and it must have been known to the gentleman concerned that he could not sit for any local authority. All the time that he was sitting in the Northern Ireland Parliament—without going into the question of how he came to sit in that Parliament—when he was, after all, free to speak, he made no effort whatsoever to correct this injustice, so what injustice is there?
The third suggestion of injustice is that if only there were in Ireland, as there is here, a Clerical Disability Act, Mr. MacManaway could have shed his clerical garb

and could have stood for this House, as did one gentleman, Sir Edmund Brocklebank. But if Sir Edmund Brocklebank were to go to Ireland, though he had shed his clerical character for every other purpose, he would still be ineligible as a clergyman to sit even on a parish council in Ireland. But that is not the real point. The real point, and the gravamen of the attack, and the reason why this House should seriously consider what it should do in regard to this Bill, is that the reverend gentleman made no effort to get rid of his spiritual character. He did not, as the Act provides, resign all his livings, give up all his position, wait six months, and not use his title as reverend gentleman or anything else. He went into the Northern Ireland Parliament and stood as a candidate when he was rector of the constituency where the election was taking place, and in so far as that is concerned, we are asked—

Professor Savory: Surely that is untrue. He had resigned his living, and he handed in his resignation to the bishop before he stood as a candidate for Londonderry.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In any event, it is clearly irrelevant to this Bill.

Mr. Bing: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What you say strengthens the second part of my argument. Irrespective of his formal leaving of the church, what was required by hon. Gentlemen opposite was that a clergyman should come in and fight this fight as a clergyman. I appreciate that that is a serious charge, but the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Teevan) knows very well that at that very time he was urging not only that should clergymen come in and fight that fight, but that they should use the pulpit for inculcating—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. and learned Gentleman must be relevant to the matter before the House. I understand that he is now arguing something with regard to an election for the Northern Ireland Parliament.

Mr. Bing: No. Perhaps I did not make my point clear, and I apologise to the House for my lapse. The point I am making—and this is what the House ought to decide—is this: Did Mr. MacManaway really think, "I may be


qualified or I may not," and was he persuaded to run, despite the fact that hon, Members opposite in his own Northern Ireland party knew that he was, or might be, disqualified, because they felt they could win a seat with a clergyman and could not win a seat without one? Surely it is highly material to examine the sort of political argument that was put up. If the election was to turn on purely political questions, obviously, as the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said, it would not matter whether the candidate was a clergyman or not. If the election was to turn on whether it was a defence of Protestantism or an attack upon the Roman Catholics, then it would be highly material whether Mr. MacManaway was forced to go forward despite his own doubts.

Earl Winterton: Despite what the hon. and learned Member has said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, did not Mr. Speaker distinctly give a Ruling that we could not discuss the circumstances of the election. This is a matter of great constitutional importance to this House. If Mr. Speaker gave that Ruling—and there is no question about it that he did—I suggest, with respect, that the hon. and learned Gentleman is endeavouring to walk round it by making frivolous observations which have nothing whatever to do with the matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must not be taken as necessarily agreeing with the latter part of the noble Lord's remarks. I agree, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot go into the details of the elections for either the Northern Ireland Parliament or of this House.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but that is not what I was attempting to do.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will now pass to another matter and not deal with that point further.

Mr. Driberg: With great respect, may I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Are we to take it that an important precedent is being created today and that future Second Reading debates are to be limited as

narrowly and as mysteriously as this one is limited?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that it is extremely difficult to draw a line in a matter of this sort. Mr. Speaker has given certain Rulings, and I have, so far as I can, to interpret them, which I have endeavoured to do. It is clear to me that, in any event, Mr. Speaker's Ruling would be disobeyed if I allowed the hon. and learned Gentleman to deal further with the matter with which he is now dealing. Therefore, I must ask him to pass to another matter, and I must ask the House to support me in that decision.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Surely it is strictly relevant to the case, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. and learned Member should show that on the evidence before him, this was a try-on. If in point of fact there was doubt in their minds as to whether Mr. MacManaway was fit to sit or not, then to know whether if it was found that he could not sit he could have a Bill of Indemnity, would make it strictly relevant to find out whether, in fact, it was a try-on.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. In any event, that was not quite the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman was making. I must ask him to pass to some other point.

Mr. Bing: I feel that it is desirable that in the House, when Mr. MacManaway is not here, we should put his conduct in the most favourable light. To suggest that he was being pressed or pushed by other people to take part in the election when he well knew that he might have been disqualified, is a point in his favour.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman, under the guise of raising a further point of order, or, rather, of giving an explanation, is going into the same matter again. I must ask him not to do that. I shall have to invite the House to take notice of his action if he proceeds to do so further. I hope that he will pass on to another point.

Mr. Bing: If I may sum up my argument, I would say that if it has not been valuable in one respect it has perhaps been valuable in raising a great many points of order, which, I feel sure, will


be of value as precedents at a later date. The argument which I have attempted to address to the House is: Did Mr. MacManaway know that he might be disqualified at the time he stood for the election? Perhaps we shall hear from some other hon. Members what was his view about that. Was it considered, for example, that if he was disqualified the seat could still be won, because a campaign could be run on the ground that he had been unjustly treated?
It seems to me that these are the sort of questions which are before the House. If I may conclude—I have delayed the House far too long as it is—with one more general observation, may I say that we are, in this Bill, endeavouring to indemnify a clergyman. We are vindicating a law which keeps clergymen of all sorts out of the House of Commons. While it is necessary to do that in passing this Bill, we should not lose sight of the wider issues because it is not, if I may say so with all respect, the presence of clergymen in the House of Commons which introduces religion into politics, which is one of the things that we wish to avoid.
I notice that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) and the hon. Member for Enfield. West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) took occasion recently to point out that I did not possess the Christian virtues which they made themselves clear to the House as possessing. I accept the rebuke and I hope that the House will accept it from me, as being less than they in these matters of Christian virtue, that when we come to pass a Bill of this sort, we must keep our eyes on the wider issues and prevent the attacking of people and the exploitation or the running of elections on religious issues, because it is that which leads to circumstances in which a Bill of this sort comes to be introduced.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Gage: The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) began his speech by saying that he hoped that the House would be generous towards Mr. MacManaway and, therefore, it did not altogether surprise me that he spent the rest of his speech in trying to persuade the House not to pass this Bill of Indemnity. The hon and learned Gentleman did, as has been pointed out, achieve victory in this

matter in the Privy Council. He was quite right in his interpretation of the law, and the remainder of us were not. It is, as a result of that, that Mr. MacManaway lost his seat and that we are now considering this Bill. In those circumstances, I would have thought that it would have been more becoming if the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch could have shown a little more magnanimity towards Mr. MacManaway.

Mr. Bing: May I make my position clear? I believe that the House should show the utmost magnanimity towards Mr. MacManaway, whom I regard merely as a tool of persons far cleverer than he. It is those people who, when there was a doubt as to his qualifications, persuaded him to go forward, and it is those who are really worthy of the censorship of the House.

Mr. Gage: This is a personal Bill. It is to indemnify Mr. MacManaway and not other people.
I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should follow the advice he has given the House and show a little magnanimity towards this gentleman, after all, the gentleman gave up his living and his pension and all his emoluments to become a politician. It may have been an unwise decision, but that is what he wanted to do. He was in much the same position as a soldier who gives up his Army career and rights to a pension to do the same thing. The only difference between the two is that a soldier can resign his commission but a clergyman cannot renounce his orders. In those circumstances he was disqualified. The human problem became obscured by the various legal issues, and many who sit here will realise what a pang it must have been to give up a political career almost at the outset. I do not think any of us would desire to do anything that might make it more painful to the gentleman concerned.
The hon. and learned Member put forward his case on three main points. He devoted himself, in the first place, to what had been said by Mr. MacManaway after his election. Those who practise in the law will know that the defeated litigant is rarely pleased with the decision. The hon. and learned Member who has made this particular branch of the law his speciality may perhaps find that when he


comes to his next case he is on the losing side and that his client will not accept the decision with equanimity. In these circumstances, people do say foolish things which are much better ignored.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Does not the hon. Member think it particularly reprehensible and disgraceful that after the House had indicated, with almost unanimous consent, that an act of magnanimity was to be done it was represented throughout the election as a plot by Labour Members, that no one was to issue a writ and no reference was made to the Judicial Committee?

Mr. Gage: That was not said by Mr. MacManaway. No one would desire to stand up for that type of thing, but we should understand and be magnanimous in our understanding that people who suffer a bitter personal rebuff are often inclined, in the heat of the moment, to say unwise and foolish things which they would not otherwise have said. Are we really going to say that because someone has been stupid and perhaps gone further than he ought that we are not going to pass a Bill of this nature, but will leave Mr. MacManaway open to what would be tremendous penalties? That would be entirely wrong?
Secondly, it is said that we should not pass this Bill because Mr. MacManaway voted at a time when there was doubt and the matter had been referred to the Privy Council for their decision. It should be remembered that here was a person who was entirely inexperienced and did not know anything of the ways of the House. It was a tremendous dilemma for him to know what was right for him to do. If he voted and was disqualified the kind of things that are now being said might have been said, but if he did not vote and was not disqualified Members and constituents might well have accused him of timidity and cowardice. That was the problem with which he was faced. It was very difficult for him to make up his mind. He decided, since there was so much conflicting advice, that he was going to vote, and he did so on one occasion.

Mr. McGovern: The hon. Member puts it very simply, but will he cast his mind back to

the time when a crucial vote was to be taken in the House and Mr. MacManaway was summoned here by the Conservative Whips and, when interviewed by the Press as to whether he was entitled to vote, said that he was going to vote and that nothing would prevent him from doing so that night?

Mr. Gage: That is the vote I referred to; and it only points to how very difficult it was for this inexperienced Member. If it had not been a crucial debate it might have been easier. He did not give his views at the interview on whether or not he was entitled to sit, but said that he was going to vote.

Mr. McGovern: I think this is important. He was asked whether or not he had the right to vote because his case was under consideration, and he said that, independent of anything, he was going to vote and that nothing would prevent him casting his vote that night.

Mr. Gage: He had, after all, come to that decision. But Members opposite might well consider this. If he had been a Member who was likely to vote on their side, do they not think that they would have been very much more interested? All our views on this matter are coloured by the point of view we take on that particular vote. It was for that reason that I was trying to put the matter in its proper perspective, as seen through the eyes of Mr. MacManaway. Members may talk about pressure being brought on him to vote on that occasion, but there was plenty of pressure brought to bear on him not to vote—a common informer writ was served on him two days before, and there were plenty of views expressed by Members here. Therefore, this unfortunate man was in the middle of conflicting pressures.

Mr. Snow: Surely the hon. Member is somewhat in conflict with his hon. Friends because, in the discussion on the Bill which the noble Lord has ruled we may not discuss, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) said—

Earl Winterton: On a point of order. That is a very serious reflection upon the Chair. I rose to a point of order and in reply Mr. Deputy-Speaker ruled that I was correct. The hon. Member has said that the "noble Lord has ruled," suggesting, in other words, that Mr. Deputy-Speaker was influenced by the


point I put in my favour. I ask that the hon. Member should be requested to withdraw that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I was not in the Chair when this took place, so I am rather in a difficulty.

Earl Winterton: I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you will not give protection both to hon. and right hon. Members against the suggestion that they and not you and Mr. Speaker rule. The hon. Member deliberately used the term "since the noble Lord has ruled," which I regard as a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The noble Lord has no right to rule one way or the other on this matter.

Earl Winterton: That is exactly the cause of my complaint. The hon. Gentleman used a term which does not affect me in the slightest, but which is a reflection upon the Chair. He stated that I had power to rule and not the Chair. The ruling was given by the Chair. The term the hon. Gentleman used was, "the noble Lord has ruled," and that is clearly a reflection upon the Chair.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know whether it is a reflection on the Chair, but rulings are given from the Chair.

Mr. Snow: I was about to quote from a speech by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) on the occasion of the Bill which has been the subject of some discussion. He said:
The second great difference is this: Any hon. Member who has studied the report of the Commission will, I am sure, agree with the learned Attorney that there can be no question of any implication on the personal honour of either of the two gentlemen or the lady. We are very happy to be able to make that clear. It is perfectly clear that from the moment when they had the least suspicion that they had been guilty of impropriety they did not come to this House or vote in this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 1890.]
That is a very different attitude from that described by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), and which is now put forward by his other colleagues.

Mr. Gage: My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) was making a speech on quite a different matter. He

was talking on what was a matter of taste, and what I have spoken about is a perfectly different thing. I am trying to get hon. Gentlemen to look at this matter not from this party view or that party view, or what they would have done in the circumstances, but from the point of view of this unfortunate gentleman and the position he was in. In the matter of the vote this was the subject of a great deal of controversy and from all sides there was the greatest pressure. It is not in the slightest degree relevant to say that he was forced to vote by this person or that person, because we are considering only his own conduct here, and whether or not he should be indemnified.
The other matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch concerned Mr. MacManaway's conduct before he sat in the House. For him it is an inegenuous argument to say, "He should not have put himself up as a candidate, because I advised him not to." In those days the hon. and learned Gentleman was not the specialist in this rather obscure and abstruse branch of the law that he has since become, and I am bound to say that I am pleased to think it is not a particularly lucrative one. I should not imagine that there is likely to be a great number of cases of this nature. The hon. and learned Gentleman has devoted himself for a considerable period to this matter and we have listened to his pronouncement on the legal issue with respect. In those days that was not the case at all. Many hon. Members might have been inclined to say, "The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch says that this man is disentitled to sit; quite clearly, therefore, he is entitled." I really do not think that because that sort of view is put forward and because, it now happens that he has turned out to be right, that is a reason for saying that this unfortunate gentleman should not have put himself forward as a candidate and allowed himself to have been selected.
As I said at the beginning, this is a simple and a very short issue. Here is a person who, I think, quite unwittingly has committed a number of offences in respect of an old and abstruse statute. In those circumstances I should have thought we would have been less than just if we did not at once pass this very obvious and very proper Bill.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The House always listens with great respect to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage) who has always spoken with moderation on this matter. I have no desire at all to add any fuel to the fires to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) referred one and a half hours ago. I do not wholly share the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) upon this matter. I have considerable sympathy with Mr. MacManaway. I had some liking for him while he was in the House, and I am bound to say that week after week, I find myself deploring his absence rather more.
I feel that, although it is necessary before a legal tribunal that we must refer to Acts of Parliament as Acts of Parliament, with due respect, anybody who is interested in the history of the early 19th Century knows perfectly well that the Act of 1801 was never passed to disqualify clergymen at all, was never passed to clarify the law, but was passed for one single purpose—to find a way of getting rid of a gentleman by the name of Mr. John Home Tooke, whom everybody wanted to get rid of for a variety of reasons, some of which were probably good.
For one thing he was a Radical, and for another it was a little unfortunate that the Speaker in the Chair who shook his hand on his introduction to the House, was the man who previously had prosecuted him unsuccessfully for high treason. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby will probably remember that during the case when Mr. John Horne Tooke was cross-examining the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General from the dock, an unprecedented spectacle was presented to the court and to the jury of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General in tears bemoaning the cruel way in which they had been treated by the wit of the gentleman whom they were seeking to hang, draw and quarter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to discuss the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, 1801, I do not think that that arises on this Bill.

Mr. Hale: It was not a point I was going to pursue in that way at all, but I want to follow it up because of what the hon. Member for Belfast, South, said about the comparative merits and the sufferings of Mr. MacManaway, who insisted on resigning his benefices and so on. The only comparison we have got is that of Mr. John Horne Tooke. I will not follow at any great length the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman. He did say quite fairly that this matter was pretty hard on Mr. MacManaway. He came to this House and was left in a state of uncertainty for a long time. He resigned his benefices as rector of Derry before election to the Northern Ireland Parliament. This raised the point that I was making.
John Horne Tooke, for whom no indemnity Bill was provided, divested himself of his clerical functions 32 years before he entered Parliament. He ceased to practise as a clergyman many years before coming to Westminster. Indeed, the contemporaries of the day reported that he was smothered in tea and muffins in the first year of his ordination, and in the second year he was playing cards in a public window of the rectory every Sunday. Although he had ceased to practise as a clergyman, he suffered great disabilities. He was refused admission to the Bar on the ground that he was still a clergyman, and for a long time he was refused a degree on the grounds that he was a clergyman. But worse was to follow. He was wooing a voluptuous Italian damsel, who contemptuously rejected his embraces when she heard that he was or had been a Protestant cleric. Indeed, so great was her contempt that her brothers declared a vendetta on him and attempted to take his life but shot the wrong Englishman by mistake.
Although I accept the view that, on the whole, things have been fairly hard on Mr. MacManaway—this was a finely balanced legal argument and might have gone either way—I suggest that other people have been more harshly treated in the past than we propose to treat him today.
I come now to a matter upon which I want some information from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. This Bill has taken a very remarkable time to produce. It was promised in the first week of the


last Session. Six or seven months have now expired before we have been privileged to see it. I know that the Parliamentary draftsmen are very busy and I know it is sometimes difficult to produce even a short Bill, but in the last few days we have had a remarkable example of celerity on the part of His Majesty's Government in producing the Bill giving effect to one part of the Budget. It was printed and distributed seven days after the Budget. One would almost think it was printed before the Budget was announced to the House of Commons, but I do not think that was the case.
I wonder what negotiations were taking place behind the scenes on this matter. It is important that we should know. I had occasion to bring before the House the conduct of the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland in making comments on this matter. I am not going to refer to the exact comments made, but he occupied a quasi-judicial position and is the same gentleman who has been negotiating with His Majesty's Government about the effects of this Bill in Northern Ireland, all of which are considered of constitutional importance.
I accept at once what the hon. Member for Belfast, South, says. Let us, in two or three minutes, review the facts in this matter in order to refresh our memories. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch, always brings into any matter with which he deals so much wit and spirit that he always runs the risk of conveying an impression of being slightly ungenerous at times, which entirely belies him, because no one has behaved more generously than he has in this matter. Let me tell the House just what happened. On 12th July, 1949, seven months before the General Election, my hon. and learned Friend called attention to Mr. MacManaway's selection as candidate, and asked for amending legislation. He pressed hon. Gentlemen opposite to take up the matter. No one could have done more than my hon. and learned Friend, and no one could have had a fairer warning than he gave. That was six or seven months before the Election.
When Mr. MacManaway was in danger of taking his seat and of incurring very heavy penalties, he was warned by my hon. and learned Friend, and when he did take his seat, it was my hon. and learned

Friend who suggested the appointment of a Select Committee to which Mr. MacManaway's case could be referred and before which doubts could be resolved. When Mr. MacManaway took his seat and risked having to pay these fantastic sums, my hon. and learned Friend behaved with the greatest propriety. The matter was then referred to the Judicial Council of the Privy Council where my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch argued the matter with conspicuous ability.
Now comes the vote to which reference has been made, and to which very great importance is attached by some of us. We think it was an instance of a somewhat contemptuous way of treating Parliament when it was attempting to resolve a difficulty. The vote was given not merely after the Judicial Committee had been appointed, but after the Judicial Committee had finished their hearing, when it was their duty to report the findings to His Majesty in Council, and at the moment when they were secret. Yet every barrister who had attended that court had told me—every one with whom I am in close contact—that they knew perfectly well, by the sort of question that had been put, the sort of observation, comment and gesture which had been made, precisely what the position was going to be. It was after that, that Mr. MacManaway acted, not, I think, of his own volition. We ought to be told how, and whether he was wired and told to come. It was after that, that he registered the vote which was intended to bring about a General Election in this country.

Mr. Gage: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that. The vote was before the hearing at the Judicial Committee, which hearing, in my recollection, was very closely towards the end of July. It was before that.

Mr. Hale: I think it was in September.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is quite right. My recollection is that the hearing was towards the end of the summer term. The vote was at a special session in September. The Privy Council had not announced their decision.

Mr. Hale: I am not in a position to challenge what has been said. I agree with the Attorney-General that the vote was in September because the courts were


not sitting then. I have put to the House every argument which I believed to be correct. There was some discussion on the matter in October in this House on two occasions. My right hon. Friend who was then the Leader of the House, but who is now the Foreign Secretary, said that the Government were going to bring in a Bill to indemnify Mr. MacManaway, not merely for the trouble that had been caused when the issue was in doubt, but for the final vote passed in September. I think, on the whole, that that was the sense of the House and I have no desire to object to it at all.
Therefore, it is pretty shocking that Mr. MacManaway, after that, should write those letters attacking the Government for victimising him and depriving West Belfast of its rights to have a Member. He was trying to influence the electors by the letter that was part of the election address of the present Member of Parliament. I say to the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby, who has pleasantly said that there was no clerical qualification to influence the election on this occasion, that there was. There was Mr. MacManaway himself, the former rector of Derry and the former claimant to be a Member of this House, saying to the electors:
I have been victimised. Protestants, stand together, and return the hon. Member.
I do not know whether the hon. Member is a Protestant but he is a Sir Knight of the Black Preceptory, and a member of the Apprentice Boys of Derry. I do not know what theological significance that has.

Mr. Donnelly: Would my hon. Friend tell us what this "Black Preceptory" is?

Mr. Hale: I have not a clue.
I come to the point to which the hon. Member opposite has applied his mind and which is fundamental. We have to know what the effect of the Bill is and how it applies generally. I did raise this point in the House on 17th October, when my right hon. Friend's announcement was made. This is what I said to the Leader of the House:
Is it not a fact that the law at present is that where a disqualified candidate, whose disqualification was known at the time of the election, is returned, the runner-up automatically succeeds to the seat?

My right hon. Friend said:
There is substance in that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 1888.]
Then the constitutional expert below the Gangway, whom I am sorry not to see in his seat, the hon. Baronet the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), asked the Lord President to remember the case of William Preston, who was elected Member for Walsall, in 1924, but the observation had no relevance. It was an example that "the Active Back Benchers" are apt to be active physically rather than mentally.
I know that the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby will agree that this is a point of substance. It is important, and we ought to have it made clear. I am not urging this House very specially to take one line or another, but before we pass this Bill, we have the right to know just what it means. The law was settled perfectly clearly in the Launceston case. There was the case of Beresford Hope v. Lady Sandhurst, which was very strictly inquired into. It was a very strong Court of Appeal with Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, Lord Justice Brett, the Master of the Rolls and others.
The facts are these: At the local government election for Brixton, shortly after the Act of 1888 was passed, Lady Sandhurst stood for election because some ingenious person had observed that the Local Government Act did not specifically exclude women. Women had a local government vote. She said: "I have a right to stand" and she was declared one of the two elected. After the election, application was made to the court by the runner-up to say that he should be returned as the member because the disqualification of Lady Sandhurst was apparent to the electors from the start. They knew that she was a woman, and that women were disqualified and they had therefore wilfully cast away their votes.
There were many precedents for that. I do not want to bore the House with a legal argument, but the precedents are perfectly clear. There was the case to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch referred on the previous occasion, the Launceston case, where the Conservative candidate said that anyone could shoot rabbits free on his estate, and made his announcement a


few days before the election. Certainly, it was rather an alteration of his habits. [Laughter.] It would be an even more valuable privilege today. It was held to be corruption, and the losing candidate took this step: he wrote and published a letter, which was brought to the notice of the electors, saying, "The candidate is disqualified because of his corruption," before the vote took place. There was considerable argument as to whether that meant that the second man should be returned. There it was held that as the corruption was not fully known, although notice was given, he did not quite come within that category.
It has been held time after time that if you are disqualified from the start—[Interruption.] I will read the case in full if anybody doubts it, but I do not think anybody does doubt it. No doubt this is precisely what has been discussed with the Government of Northern Ireland in these months while we have been waiting for the Bill. This is the law and there is no doubt about the law. I say that no lawyer in this House will challenge me on this point. The law is that if a candidate stands, who is subsequently found to have been disqualified for a reason which was patent on the face of it, and known to the electors at the time, then those electors have thrown away their votes and there may not be a new election except by the will of Parliament, and that the second person ought properly to be returned. That is the position. If you know a man is a clergyman, it does not matter if you know whether clergymen are disqualified or not. If you know something of him which the law subsequently says is a disqualification, the runner-up comes in.

Earl Winterton: In the interests of historical accuracy I think the hon. Member will find that the candidate in the Launceston case—I remember it well because the candidate was an old friend of mine—was not disqualified exactly on the grounds mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hale: I think the noble Lord may be falling into the error of confusing two cases. This is the case of Drinkwater v. Deacon and the date is 1874.

Earl Winterton: Earl Winterton indicated assent.

Mr. Hale: We now come to an important point. I drew the attention of the Leader of the House to this point at once. He said, "Let us be generous, let us issue a new writ, let us call it a day, let them have their election." It is anybody's guess whether that was the right thing to do, but we were trying to be magnanimous, although many of us were conscious at the time that we could have demanded that the second man for West Belfast be elected. That is why, on the whole, I do not think the conduct of the West Belfast election was generous by the sitting Member and his supporters.
Now look at the position so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. One of the powers that this Parliament has never given to the Parliament of Northern Ireland is the right to decide at all on the qualification of its members. That may have been a wise and prudent decision in view of some of the things that have happened since. Under Section 18 of the Act, the Northern Ireland House of Commons is bound by our decisions on qualification. Whatever is the qualification at the time applies to Northern Ireland. If we alter it, it applies there at once. And from the time the House recorded its decision unanimously that Mr. MacManaway was disqualified from his seat in this House, he was disqualified from his seat in that House, and they had no power in the matter. They could not alter the law, they could not by their motion take the course that we did. They had to summon to that Parliament the runner-up, who was Mr. McCarroll, the candidate for Derry.
What have they done? They have behaved a little contumeliously to this House in view of the action we took in our discussions with the Attorney-General and in view of the quasi-judicial position of the Attorney-General in dealing with this matter. We behaved a little magnanimously on that occasion. They have permitted the Rev. J. G. MacManaway to resign his seat in the House so that they can fight a new election in West Derry. I want to ask the Attorney-General—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I was under the impression that Mr. Speaker, before he left the Chair, said that we could not discuss anything that the Northern Ireland Parliament did.

Mr. Hale: But may I refer you to the Act itself, Sir? This is what the Act says in Section 1—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not doubt in the least what the Act says, but Mr. Speaker said we could not discuss the action of the Northern Ireland Parliament.

Mr. Hale: I am not discussing the actions of the Northern Ireland Parliament, I am discussing the effect of this Bill in the circumstances as they now exist. This is a little different from the point Mr. Speaker was referring to, which was a matter of personal comment. I am asking the Attorney-General a question. This is the Second Reading of a Bill of substantial importance. May I respectfully submit, Sir—because we ought to have it clear—that it has been laid down in Erskine May from time immemorial that we can discuss on Second Reading not merely what is in the Bill but what we think should be in the Bill—the provisions that should be incorporated if the Act is to serve its purpose.
What I am discussing now is whether there should be in this Bill a provision to deal with the fantastic position which arises under it, which means that nobody knows in Northern Ireland whether they can hold an election for Derry City or not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think to do that would be quite outside the scope of this Bill. It only indemnifies one man, and to alter the constitution by means of this Bill would be out of order.

Mr. Hale: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. The position at the moment, so far as Mr. MacManaway is concerned, is that he has purported to resign his seat in the Northern Ireland Parliament. The Speaker of the Northern Ireland Parliament has purported to accept that resignation. Every legal authority is of the view that that is a thing he has no power to do.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That is just the very point which I heard Mr. Speaker say we were not to discuss—the actions of the Northern Ireland Parliament.

Mr. Bing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps this would assist us in considering the matter: that obviously one of the acts for which we

must indemnify Mr. MacManaway is his act as a Member in giving an act of resignation when he was not a Member. That is one of the things with which this Bill aims to deal. Now it is not as if there were in this Bill a provision affecting the step taken. Therefore we are considering whether we ought not to indemnify him for his act in resigning when he was not a Member. That is a material matter.

The Attorney-General: May I respectfully submit that that point is really not quite right? There is no possibility of an action for damages being brought against Mr. MacManaway for resigning from a position which, in fact, he never occupied. As, I understand it, if the action of the Parliament of Northern Ireland is illegal, if the action of the Speaker there is illegal, if any action is illegal in causing a new election to be held, that is a matter which will be open to challenge, whatever we do here, in the courts of Northern Ireland and, eventually, in our courts. All we are doing here is to indemnify Mr. MacManaway in respect of votes he cast or occasions on which he sat. I do not agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), which is somewhat different.

Mr. Bing: It is my respectful submission to you, Sir, despite what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that we are indemnifying Mr. MacManaway against both sitting and voting. When one looks at the technical definition of sitting, we see this involves any action which causes the name to be recorded in Votes and Proceedings. In this particular case, a Member cannot, of course, resign unless the fact is recorded in Votes and Proceedings that he is a Member. Therefore, he would be liable to a fine of £500 before his act of resignation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member is referring to the Votes and Proceedings of this Parliament, that is so; but we cannot discuss the Votes and Proceedings of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bing: But we are indemnifying him in regard to his voting and sitting in the Northern Ireland Parliament. We must, therefore, decide the number of occasions on which he has sat and voted.

Earl Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It has


been ruled again and again that we cannot discuss in this House in any circumstances the Votes and Proceedings of the Northern Ireland Parliament.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker laid it down today at the beginning of this debate.

Mr. Hale: Before I deal with the main point, I should like to deal with a subsidiary point of order. On eight or nine occasions now the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has risen and tried to explain to the present occupant of the Chair what his predecessor in the Chair has said. With very great respect, I should have thought that it was an established tradition of the House that when any occupant of the Chair desired to get information about a Ruling by the previous occupant, he would get it from the Clerk and those sitting with him at the Table. If we are to introduce the habit of any hon. Member popping up and saying, "Yes, you may have agreed with Mr. Jones, but Mr. Speaker did not agree with him on a previous occasion—"

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am in no difficulty. I was sitting in the corner and I heard Mr. Speaker's Ruling myself.

Mr. Hale: I am glad that you agree with me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it was wholly unnecessary for the noble Lord to make such an intervention. This is an important point, and I am not challenging your Ruling. I know that it is a point of some complexity, but I sincerely believe it to be a constitutional point of importance. The Attorney-General has said that he proposes to deal with it in reply, and I do not want to see him inhibited in attempting to deal with such a vital point. The real point is whether the Bill is large enough. Is Mr. MacManaway still a Member of the Northern Ireland House of Commons? He certainly cannot resign. Either he was disqualified from the seat or he was not. If he was disqualified from the seat, he needs an indemnity Bill. If he has purported to resign and has not succeeded, the Bill needs amending to deal with that. Somehow someone has to lay down what the law is.
It is not correct to say that we cannot deal with what happens in the Northern Ireland Parliament. This is a matter in

which this House, under Section 18 (2) of the Government of Ireland Act, reserved all rights and did not delegate any rights whatever to the Northern Ireland Parliament. To complete the point, I have here the very authoritative work which was written by a former Clerk of Parliaments of Northern Ireland which deals with the Act and makes it perfectly clear that Section 18 (2) says this:
The law for the time being in force relating to the qualification and disqualification of the Members of the Commons House of Parliament in the United Kingdom and the taking of any oath required to be taken by any Member of that House shall, save as otherwise provided in this Act, apply to Members of the Senate and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland.
This is a matter on which we are trying to help Northern Ireland, for it is a matter in which they cannot act, and we should consider putting in the necessary provisions to clarify the whole position so that we will not need to have another Bill brought before us. That is all I am trying to say, and I will be very good and try not to go outside that ambit for a moment or two.
The position is that there is a purported resignation. Everyone is in doubt whether the resignation was right or not. No writ has been issued for Derry. The position in law, as I understand it, is quite clear, that if there had not been this purported resignation to try to stop the effect of the Resolution of this House, it is clear that Mr. MacManaway's seat would be vacant and that Mr. McCarroll, the only other candidate for Derry, must at once have been summoned to take his seat in the Northern Ireland Parliament.
I have only one observation to make on that. I have come to the conclusion that it may very well be material when the House comes to consider the matter to have the advice of the Attorney-General, and, having heard him explain the matter much more clearly than I have managed to explain it this afternoon, the House may have to decide what is, in the circumstances, an appropriate Clause to introduce into the Bill; whether we ought to have another formal Clause to declare the seat vacant and leave the machinery to take its course, or say that in all the circumstances, Mr. McCarroll should, in these special circumstances, be summoned as the Member for Derry City in the Northern Ireland House of Commons.
A relevant consideration is the position of the Derry City constituency and the circumstances of the election. I have here a map. Derry City now exists in this form. There is Derry, which contains 16,000 Catholics and 11,000 Protestants, and all the rest of this vast area outside has been brought in to give the Protestants a majority in Derry City. This is widening—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Surely we are going too wide now in discussing the election and the electoral prospects of Londonderry. I respectfully submit that that could not be within the scope of the Bill even if we were on the Committee stage and the hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to move an Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), said that he was coming to an end and I was hoping that he would not pursue this too far. My patience is not inexhaustible.

Mr. Hale: I regret that phrase, which has an unfortunate historical connotation, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I accept it, and I will quickly come to the end of my points. I was making the point that Derry City constituency had been made too wide when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby made a similar remark with another intention. I thought at first that I was receiving unexpected support for my contention from the Front Bench opposite. It is important that the Attorney-General should be quite clear about the matter and should tell us just what he considers the legal position to be, what steps it is proposed to take, and so on.
For the rest, I give the Bill my blessing, and always have done. I believe that the House should always be generous. Mr. MacManaway is greatly to be pitied for what happened, even if he is a little to be blamed for what happened afterwards, although I do not desire even to put that too high. I should like the House always to be generous and magnanimous about these things.

6.16 p.m.

Professor Savory: I am concerned with the defence of the Reverend Godfrey MacManaway. It has

been alleged here in this House that he stood for Derry when he was still Rector of Christchurch. I know for a fact that before he ever stood as a candidate his resignation of that rectory was in the hands of the Bishop of Derry and Raphoe. Not only that; he made inquiries and, had it been possible, he would under the Clerical (Disabilities) Act, 1870, have relinquished Holy Orders, but he was advised that that Act did not apply to Northern Ireland, and, therefore, he was prevented from carrying out the further step of relinquishing Holy Orders as was done by Sir Edmond Brocklebank, a clergyman, who relinquished his Holy Orders and became the very esteemed Member for Liverpool.
I have been acquainted with this case from the very beginning. I attended every meeting of the Select Committee and heard the whole evidence. I also attended as many sittings as I could of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I want to make it quite clear to this House that Mr. MacManaway acted absolutely bona fide in thinking that he was eligible. Doubts have been thrown upon this matter. He believed that he was eligible. He had the most important opinion given by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General in the year 1869—[Laughter]—it is relevant—that when the Bill to disestablish the Irish Church—

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman must mean "the late" Attorney-General.

Professor Savory: If I had not been interrupted I should have said "the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General of that date."

Mr. Moeran: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order to go back over the rights and merits of the proceedings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as the hon. Member seems to be doing?

Professor Savory: I merely want to show on what grounds Mr. MacManaway believed that he was eligible. He had the very important opinion of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General in 1869 that so soon as the Irish Church was disestablished clergymen would be eligible for Parliament. He therefore believed firmly that that opinion—these eminent lawyers became judges of


the High Court—was correct; that consequently, from the moment that the Disestablishment Act came into force on 1st January, 1871, the disability imposed by the Act of 1801 no longer existed. It was largely due to this most important opinion that the Reverend Godfrey MacManaway believed that he was eligible. I have been reproached for going back to 1869, although that was absolutely relevant. But Mr. MacManaway had also a legal opinion in writing from a most distinguished K.C.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—I read it myself, and although I do not profess to be a lawyer I found it absolutely conclusive. He acted on this opinion. After all, if anyone is in doubt on a legal matter, he takes the opinion of the highest lawyer of his acquaintance. Mr. MacManaway had this legal opinion in writing. I read it through most carefully. I certainly thought it was overwhelmingly convincing.

Mr. George Wigg: What was his name?

Professor Savory: Therefore, fortified by this very important legal opinion—

Hon. Members: Who gave it?

Mr. Bing: Now that the hon. Member has had the advantage of reading this opinion, would he say whether it dealt with the draft Bill as prepared for use in this House, setting out what were disqualifications and what were not? I assume, perhaps wrongly, that that must have been called to the attention of Mr. MacManaway, because it is the one document to which anyone goes when dealing with this matter.

Professor Savory: The legal opinion insisted on the fact that the law of 1801 could apply only to a State Church. From the moment that the Church of Ireland was disestablished and disendowed, the State had no further control over it; the laws of the State no longer applied to it. Therefore, Mr. MacManaway was perfectly entitled to stand for West Belfast.
Strictures have been made upon the fact that the reverend gentleman voted on a certain occasion, which is stated to have been in September, after the question of his eligibility had been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is a fact. The Judicial Committee had not reported; their findings had not

come before this House, and therefore the Rev. Godfrey MacManaway was advised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who by?"]—he was advised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who by?"]—by the very highest authority, that he was entitled to vote, and he exercised his vote. The proof of that is that when—

Mr. Manuel: Who sent the telegram?

Professor Savory: I have listened for hours in absolute silence and without interrupting anybody. As I say, that is proved by the fact that when I brought Mr. MacManaway into the Speaker's Office and obtained permission for him to speak, he was allowed by the Speaker, when the Bill was brought forward accepting the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to take his seat and address this House; he was a Member of this House, and as such—[Interruption.] He had not then been disqualified; no Bill had been passed. An hon. Gentleman called him by his name, but he was still entitled to be called the hon. Member for Belfast, West. He was allowed to speak. Therefore, in the judgment of Mr. Speaker, he was a Member of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—until that Bill had actually been passed. If, therefore, he was allowed to speak, so much more had he the right to vote on the occasion when he did vote, and he was advised that he was legally entitled to do so.

Mr. Crossman: Take the risk.

Professor Savory: Injustice has been done today in some of the speeches made with reference to the Rev. Godfrey MacManaway, and I assert that he acted, as I know—I assure the House of this; I am sure hon. Members will take my word—absolutely bona fide when he stood as a candidate believing in all good faith that he was eligible.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Mulvey: I do not feel capable of going into the legal niceties that we have heard throughout the whole debate. Hon. Members may feel that if Mr. MacManaway was a legal Member of the House, he was the only Irishman ever to be disqualified from attendance in the House. When I heard the complaints in Unionist circles in Northern


Ireland about the unjust treatment meted out to Mr. MacManaway in depriving him of his seat at Westminster, I was reminded that notable patriotic Irishmen had been debarred from sitting in the House during the last 50 or 60 years, or possibly during the past century. But they were not deprived by virtue of any Act of Parliament. After having been duly and legally elected, they were prevented by Tory Government from sitting here because of political reasons.
Amongst those Members who were legally elected and entitled to sit in this House were these four, whose names I have: John Mitchel, Smith O'Brien, O'Donovan Rossa and, at one time, Michael Davitt. They were deprived, not by any Act of Parliament, but merely for political reasons, by the Tory Governments ruling the House at the time. Furthermore, I can discover no record that any Member in this House or any representative of the Government at the time ever suggested that an indemnity Bill should be introduced in favour of any of them.
When I hear these complaints about the treatment meted out to Mr. MacManaway, I am reminded also that a few elected Members of the subordinate Parliament in Northern Ireland, which was set up by a former Government in this House, were debarred by that Parliament from sitting there. These men included Mr. de Valera, who was elected for South Down—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot discuss the actions of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Mr. Speaker has made that quite clear.

Mr. Bing: Surely it is relevant, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we are excusing Mr. MacManaway for his appearances in the Northern Ireland Parliament, to consider whether any similar indemnities or Acts were passed when persons like Mr. de Valera were imprisoned for trying to take their seats there.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood from Mr. Speaker's Ruling that these were the sort of things we could not discuss.

Mr. Donnelly: Would it not be in order if my hon. Friend were to say that this House had never been asked to pass an indemnity Bill which

prevented Mr. de Valera from sitting in the Northern Ireland Parliament?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a rather hypothetical point of order.

Mr. James Hudson: Further to that point of order. Is it not the case that Mr. Speaker ruled that it was what took place in the Northern Ireland Parliament that we were to avoid, and that the facts now being adduced by my hon. Friend are what did not take place? Mr. de Valera never had a chance.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not quite the point.

Mr. Mulvey: I do not wish to depart in any way from the lines of procedure in this House when I say that if Mr. de Valera wished to take his seat in the Northern Ireland Parliament, he could not do so by reason of exclusion orders against him which prohibit him going to Northern Ireland at all. Today there is a democratic Government in this House, democratic in everything except in so far as Governmental affairs in Northern Ireland are concerned.
The Government are now going to be very generous to Mr. MacManaway. I do not disagree with their action in that respect at all but I wish to point out that Mr. MacManaway has been an uncompromising Tory and that the Tories in Northern Ireland and in this House, if afforded an opportunity, would draw the whole Labour administration in this House, to perdition. The Government here should get themselves disentangled entirely from Irish representation in this House; they should recognise the right of Irish people to be represented in one Parliament in Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: We must not discuss the constitutional problem between Northern Ireland and Eire in this Parliament.

Mr. Mulvey: I hope I am not contravening any rule, but I am just reminding the Government here that, if democracy is not to be designated as a sham, they must take action to satisfy the aspirations of the whole Irish people in this respect.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Snow: It will not have passed your observation, Mr. Speaker, that the first five speakers


in this debate were members of the legal profession and, indeed, this whole problem must be resolved on a legal basis. As I listened to the debate I began to feel very sorry for Mr. MacManaway. In fact, the people who I think should really bear the blame are those responsible for egging him on in a way which they must have known was thoroughly unconstitutional.
It has seemed to me that they have based part of their case on the fact that the law, or laws, governing the adoption and return to Parliament of Members of the Church were laws which were somewhat obscure and I think that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), used the word "abstruse." Therefore, we ought to examine just precisely what is the attitude of the Conservative Party about laws which are obscure or abstruse. We ought to determine, as a matter of principle, what we are prepared to concede. I imagine that there are many laws on the Statute Book which appear to be out of date and unjust under modern conditions—

Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing laws which may or may not be out of date, but whether Mr. MacManaway shall be indemnified or not.

Mr. Snow: I can appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I am trying very hard to keep within the rules of debate, but, as an inexperienced Member, I find it is not a very easy thing to do. I was trying to demonstrate that we ought to examine how far the laws, which appear to have been contravened, were Obscure or abstruse, and because of which we must now try to decide whether we ought to indemnify Mr. MacManaway or not. I have been looking up past authorities on this subject of laws which are obscure and, whether they should be observed or not I would like to quote an extract from a speech by a speaker who, I think, will command the respect of all quarters of the House. I quote from a copy of "The Times" of 16th March, 1914. It is a relatively short extract and I hope you will not rule me out of order, Sir. This is under the heading, "The Tory Party and Military Force," and the extract reads:
They are to select from the Statute Book the laws they will obey and the laws they will resist. They claim to be a party in the State

free to use force in all directions, but never to have it applied to themselves. Whether in office or in opposition, as they have very often told us, they are to govern the country. If they cannot do it by the veto of privilege, they will do it by the veto of violence. If constitutional methods serve their ends, they will be Constitutionalists….

Mr. Speaker: This is going right outside the Bill. As far as we are concerned Mr. MacManaway was elected properly into this House and into the other House, and we cannot challenge that. They are a self-governing body and we cannot challenge their actions.

Mr. Snow: May I quote some more lines, Sir, because I am coming to the point which I was trying to demonstrate and I am not trying to get round your Ruling at all? The speaker in this case was the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who at that time, was of the Liberal persuasion, and he went on:
If law suits their purpose, they will be law-abiding, aye, and law-enforcing. When social order means the order of the Tory Party, when social order means the order of the property classes against the wage earner, when social order means the master against the man, or the landlord against the tenant, order is sacred and holy, order is dear to the heart of the Tory Party and order must be maintained by force. But, if it should happen that the Constitution, or the law, or the maintenance of order stand in the path of some Tory project, stand in the path of the realisation of some appetite or ambition which they have conceived, then they vie with the wildest anarchists in the language which they use against the Constitution, against the law, and against all order and all means of maintaining order.
You have been very patient, Mr. Speaker, and I realise that I should not go on on that point, but that might have been considered a characteristically ebullient sort of speech to which we are used from the right hon. Member for Woodford in whatever political cloak he was then wearing. One would have thought that, possibly, 14 days later he would have had time to think it over and would think, "I went a little too far and I really must back up law and order." But, 14 days later, he said:
There are those who say, 'We are Tories. No laws apply to us. Laws are made for the working people, to keep them in their proper places. We are the dominant class. We are the ruling forces of the State. When laws suit us, we will obey them. If they do not suit us, so much the worse for the law'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1914; Vol. LXI, c. 1578.]

Mr. John Foster: On a point of order. Has this really anything to do with the subject matter of the debate? What the hon. Member is trying to do is to say that the objection against the Bill is that other people at other times have expressed the view that some laws are obsolete. In my respectful submission that has nothing whatever to do with this Bill.

Mr. Snow: May I ask your protection, Mr. Speaker, against the lawyers? I am not a lawyer and no doubt you and I, Mr. Speaker, do not appreciate legal quibbles. I say that the party opposite will use the law if it suits them.

Mr. Speaker: I must answer the point of order. I have tried to deal with it once or twice, and I will do so in due course. Meantime, I trust that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) will come back to whether or not we should indemnify Mr. MacManaway.

Mr. Snow: I take note of that very kind observation. It seemed to me as the debate progressed that, Mr. MacManaway was in danger of incurring a very substantial fine, which I have heard quoted as between £5,000 and £6,000, quite apart from emoluments he receives from an office which I gather he held in the Northern Ireland Parliament. That amount should not be lost to the Exchequer, but should be a fine on the party funds of the party opposite. It seems to me that in all these matters whether we are dealing with Northern Ireland or the other great Commonwealth political problems of the day, the party opposite in this House want to hide the facts from the ordinary people of the country. But what is one to assume from this sort of remark:
Watch the candidates who are being adopted to contest your constituency for the General Election. Ask them if they are Roman Catholics.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. MacManaway was adopted. We cannot dispute that, and I do not think that we should go into the whole dispute which takes place between the two sides in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Snow: I can see that I am prohibited from proceeding with that line of debate.
What I was trying to demonstrate was that this is not so much a legal matter

for the House to consider, as where lies the responsibility for misleading Mr. MacManaway. I say that it lies with the party opposite, because, to quote again from the official publication of the Ulster Tory Party, "The Voice of Ulster." we are told:
To vote for a Roman Catholic is to vote for the religion that says our Protestant King is a heretic.
I will not pursue that because I can see that you are again becoming impatient, Mr. Speaker.
When the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) was bobbing up and down like a jack-in-the-box he was playing the somewhat dangerous game of trying to put up a smoke screen to defend the behaviour of Mr. MacManaway, who, in spite of warning after warning, did his little bit to try to encompass the defeat of the Government on a most important issue. I will quote from a speech made by the noble Lord in March, 1946, when he said:
I think it would be proper for the hon. Member who voted improperly to offer some apology to Mr. Speaker, since he was not a Member at the time. It is not a light thing to vote in this House when one is not entitled to vote. It has never been held to be a light thing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 1911.]
During the speeches we have heard this afternoon from hon. Members opposite, it has seemed to me that they are doing that very thing rather than that the cause of the Conservative Party should suffer. In spite of the fact that the law might be contravened in so doing, they would apply pressure through the Party Whips' Office to make that man vote. I am sorry for him. The people who should be in the dock are the people opposite.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Donnelly: I wish to go back to some of the words used by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory). He based his argument in defence of Mr. MacManaway on the fact that this unfortunate gentleman had been misled by the lawyers, and he produced evidence to the effect that he had a document by an unknown deity of the law. We do not know who that legal eagle was. We have every reason to ask who he was. It is very material to the question whether or not we indemnify this reverend gentleman. I quite appreciate that the hon. Member for Antrim, South,


is a little backward about being forthcoming on this matter. It is important that he should give some thought to it and give some answer before we decide whether we give this Bill a Second Reading.
I believe, also, that the reverend gentleman was advised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) that he was quite legally entitled to sit. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an ex-Attorney-General. We heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) that another ex-Attorney-General had wrongly advised a previous Member in a previous case, at the turn of the century. In this case we see that the present Attorney-General was only following the tradition of his office by giving the wrong advice. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that while that might be a bit hard on him, I am blaming him only to excuse Mr. MacManaway, and he will agree that it is desirable to do that in order to give the maximum indemnity to this gentleman.
Perhaps I might now turn to another point which is very relevant to this matter. It was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). He said that he felt that the people who should be in the dock were those who persuaded Mr. MacManaway to vote. Before I decide whether or not to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, I wish to know whether a telegram was sent to Mr. MacManaway urging him to come here and vote. I want a definite answer to that question; it is important. If no telegram was sent, it may well be that we should not give the Bill a Second Reading. It is very relevant because I feel that Mr. MacManaway was more sinned against than sinning. It is important to establish that before we indemnify him.
Thirdly, I would ask, because it has been strongly rumoured I do not know on what authority and I am, therefore, asking this as a question and am not making any assertion, if it was made known to Mr. MacManaway that if any penalty of any kind were incurred by him voting in that Division on steel nationalisation he would be indemnified out of the Woolton Fund? Is there any truth in that? I want to know? That is a relevant consideration

because the Woolton Fund has plenty of money, and why should this House indemnify it?

Professor Savory: I am the honorary Secretary of the Ulster Party, and this is the first time that I have ever heard any suggestion of that kind. The hon. Member also put a question about whether a telegram was sent. Had any telegram been sent, I should surely have known about it. I have no knowledge of any such telegram being sent, and as secretary of the party I ought to know.

Mr. Donnelly: I do not wish to cast any doubt on the good faith of the hon. Member—that is the last thing I would wish to do. I was directing my question to someone more responsible, because the Ulster Unionist Party is of poor repute and of little consequence. The Conservative Party are really the people concerned in this matter.
I wish to say a word in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth said. I am particularly sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is not present today. He was one of those who urged Mr. MacManaway to come to the House and record his vote. He was one of those who gave him his support, and the very least he could have done would be to come to the House to see that his friend was protected from the consequences of his own action. I think it is disgraceful that the right hon. Gentleman is not here today to deal with this matter.
Subject to satisfactory answers to the two or three questions I have asked, I would make an appeal to my friends on the back benches of the Labour Party. I have a little experience of Northern Ireland. I am not an Irishman, except in name, but I can assure them that the people of Northern Ireland are very decent people indeed, and I ask them not to be misled by the kind of representatives that they have in this House, who are only caricatures of all the best features of the Northern Ireland people.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: I think that the House should give unanimous support to this Bill, and regard the episode as passing into the limbo of forgotten things. I believe that Mr. MacManaway took the view that he could stand as a Member of Parliament, that he


could be elected and could take his seat. I think that after doubts were created in his mind he was then encouraged by subtler people behind the scenes to do and dare. I have rather a sneaking regard for a man who has a bit of daring in these matters and for a man in that position. I would not wish to condemn him.
After all, he suffered great penalties, even though he may have been guilty of casting a vote in an illegal way. First, when he took a chance, there was a sporting chance that that night the Government would go down, that a new Government would come in, and the whole matter would be squared up by the party who took the reins of office, following the defeat of the Government with the aid of Mr. MacManaway. Therefore, in taking his courage and daring into his hands, he was to a large extent a gambler. As a gambler he gambled for stakes and he lost. He lost his seat in this House, the right to sit in this House, and the right to sit in the Northern Ireland Parliament. I regret to say that shortly after that. I think, he lost his wife. The man has suffered immense disasters and Parliament never gloats over any person who has suffered because of some act of which he is guilty. I think we should be generous in our acknowledgement of the fact that he has been deprived of these two seats.
The suggestion was made that there should be a clearing up of the position in regard to clergymen entering politics. If I am allowed to do so, I will say "God forbid that the day should come when this House is full of clergymen." I would kick every clergyman out of this House if he was going to continue to act as a clergyman. That may sound a strange thing to say, but I think there would be no more evil influence in politics than a House filled with clergymen from different Churches, all using pressure and power and terror in the political field. I think the job of clergymen is in the pulpit, saving of lost souls, and also saving of souls of Members of Parliament, outside the House.
I regret that the Northern Ireland Party have had a total disregard for the law. It has become part of Irish politics to have a complete disregard for the law. I think that is so in the South, too, as is

evidenced by the great amount of traffic that goes on between north and south to defeat the Customs and in which both sides participate.
The Attorney-General, the authorities in this House, the Government have all thought it essential to bring in this Bill of indemnity. I think the Northern Ireland Parliament have also helped to indemnify Mr. MacManaway. I think they have given him a job as Serjeant-at-Arms in the Stormont—

Mr. Teevan: That is wrong.

Mr. McGovern: At least that is reported in the public Press—and that the job will not be held until this Bill goes through this House of Commons. Whether it is true or not, if he has got a job at £1,250 a year for four whole months of the year I am glad, because it is giving him some reward for all that the Front Bench of the Tory Party in this House and the Front Bench of the Northern Ireland Parliament have dragged him through in taking this action.

Professor Savory: Surely the hon. Member will accept my denial that any such post has ever been offered to Mr. MacManaway.

Mr. McGovern: I should be loath to accept the denial of any person in Irish politics of what is going to happen after the passing of this Bill. At the same time it was reported in the Press, and it has never been denied, either by the Northern Ireland Parliament or by Mr. MacManaway. If he has the job, good luck to him. I am not angry about him getting the job. I would recommend him for it if it is available. Therefore, I say that in my estimation the House should show the utmost humanity and consideration and pass this Bill; and say to Mr. MacManaway, "Although you have lost on this occasion, we wish you the best of luck in the future."

6.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: I should like to subscribe to the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) with the possible exception of his reference to the lawlessness in the North, if not in the South of Ireland. I was surprised at the sentiments of some of the previous speakers,


particularly the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly). I was surprised that he considered the Ulster Unionist Party of such little account. I think it only fair to remind him that on his first and unsuccessful attempt to enter this House, he opposed an Ulster candidate who defeated him.
The hon. Member also referred, as have other hon. Members, to the view of Mr. MacManaway as to whether or not he should put himself forward as a candidate. In common with other Ulster Unionists, I saw something of Mr. MacManaway at that time, and there is no doubt in my mind that Mr. MacManaway did take legal advice. He took the best legal advice he could and came to the conclusion that, quite regardless of whether his election might be challenged or not, he had a good case. I would remind the House of a saying of another Irishman:
It is often dangerous to give advice. It is always fatal to give good advice.
It is because of the good advice which Mr. MacManaway received that we have to consider this Measure today.
Some rather heavy weather—if I may put it in that way—has been made of the fact that Mr. MacManaway voted in a crucial Division last September. Ulster folk are not the kind who yield very readily to pressure. Certainly pressure was exerted on Mr. MacManaway on one side or the other, but I am certain it was not in response to any pressure from any quarter that he decided to come over and vote as he did last September. He voted because he believed he ought to do it and that it was in accordance with his convictions and conscience.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the hon. and gallant Member saying that Mr. MacManaway did not receive a three-line whip to come?

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: I am not saying he did not. Everyone on this side received it.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the hon. and gallant Member saying Mr. MacManaway did not receive a telegram?

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: I do not know anything about a telegram that he may or he may not—

Mr. Donnelly: How can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that Mr. MacManaway did not have any pressure put on him?

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: I know nothing about any telegram. What I said was that I am certain in my own mind that he voted because he believed it was his duty to do so. Supposing the opinion of the Privy Council which was considering the matter at that time, had gone the other way; then I would say that Mr. MacManaway's constituents, or at least the 33,000 who returned him as their Member, would have been entitled to censure him for not doing his duty and attending here.
I should like to endorse the sentiments, which have not been very frequently referred to during this debate, of the present Foreign Secretary, who was the Lord President of the Council at the time it was proposed to introduce this Measure. He said that the House should take a generous view. I hope that the House will take such a view and will pass this Bill without dissent.

6.59 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I may speak again only with the leave of the House, but if I have that leave, I will take up some of the points raised in the course of the debate.
We have had a very interesting and at times entertaining debate. I cannot help feeling that a good time has been had by all, except perhaps by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe): and to a lesser degree myself. I cannot, unfortunately, engage in the very pleasant past-time of saying, "I told you so," because I happen to be one of those who took the view that, while the legal position was one of great difficulty and ought to go to the Privy Council for decision, it was probable that my learned predecessor in 1869 had been right in saying that the disestablishment of the Irish Church had removed these clerical disqualifications from the clergy of that church.
It follows from the white sheet that I ought to be wearing now, that I have to be a bit careful about what I say. But I am sure that nobody on this side of the House, at the end of the day, wishes to gloat over a defeated political opponent, or to glory in a legal triumph, or to be vindictive in pressing home its consequences.
Having said that, I shall come at once to some of the points of substance raised about this Bill itself. The first one raised


was that by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby, who suggested that it was most important that in the recital to the Bill we should make clear that what vacated the seat was not the advice of the Privy Council, but the fact that this House resolved, following that advice, that Mr. MacManaway was disqualified. I appreciate the force of that view, and it had, I think, a good deal of support from this side of the House when the right hon. and learned Gentleman expressed it. Indeed, I agree that it is most important that we should emphasise—and I think that our speeches have emphasised it—that this House has sole control over its constitution and its composition.
The advice of the Privy Council did not conclude the matter, and the seat was only vacated when this House by Resolution so decided. The difficulty about reciting that in relation to the action of the House of Commons here was that similar action had not been taken by the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. We thought that to recite the Resolution in the case of one House, and not to recite it in the other, might give rise to doubts as to what the true legal position was. The point is important. I have always thought so. I hope that the House is prepared to give us all the stages of this Bill now, but I will undertake to see if we can find a suitable form of words to make the position of the House quite clear in regard to this matter and to make it apparent that it is not the advice—for it was no more than advice—of the Privy Council which concluded the matter, but the Resolution of the House.
That leads me to the second point, namely that there has never previously been a Bill, it is said, which has indemnified a Member who has voted whilst the question of the qualifications of his membership was sub judice. I have a very strong view myself about the good taste of the advice given to Mr. MacManaway to sit and vote on the occasion of the Steel debate whilst this matter was still sub judice before the Privy Council.
But, dealing with the matter purely on legal grounds, we cannot have it both ways. If the seat was only vacated by the Resolution of the House then, from a legal point of view, Mr. MacManaway was entitled to sit until the House had

resolved that the seat was vacant. That, indeed, was the Ruling which you gave, Mr. Speaker, and I must confess, if I respectfully may, as I indicated in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, that I was rather cross about it at the time. I thought, with great respect, that that Ruling could not be right; but I looked it up subsequently and I was satisfied that legally that Ruling was right.
In fact, there are many precedents where individuals have voted, although proceedings were pending against them in the election court as to the validity of their election. From the legal point of view, Mr. MacManaway's right having been challenged and having been upheld by Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we can possibly say that he acted wrongly, in point of law. Whether it was a matter of good taste or not is, of course, an entirely different point. I feel, like my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that we ought not to be too hard on Mr. MacManaway about this.
If one of us had been in a similar position—new back benchers advised and summoned by the Leader of our party and the Chief Whip of our party to sit and to vote on what the party regarded as a critical Division—in fact regarded by Mr. Speaker as being entitled to sit and to vote on that critical Division—I am not sure that we should have been strong-minded enough to assert our own view of the good taste of the matter against the view of the Leader of the party and the Chief Whip of the party, when the consequence of not voting might have resulted in the defeat of our party on something that we regarded as important. I do not know whether we should have been strong-minded enough to say, "Well, as a matter of good taste we are not going to come here and vote on it while this matter is sub judice." I do not think that we should take too harsh a view.

Mr. Moeran: While my right hon. and learned Friend is on that point, would he deal with a question not of law but of the etiquette and custom of the House? I am sure that we should all welcome his remarks as to whether there was a breach of the established etiquette and custom of the House, apart from a breach of law.

The Attorney-General: I cannot pretend, in the few years that I have been a Member of this House, to have become


an authority on its etiquette and customs. It is right to say that in the previous Parliament we had a number of Bills of indemnity, and the Members concerned did not sit and vote, once it was brought to their notice that they were disqualified, until a Bill indemnifying them had been passed. But, of course, those were cases where there was no doubt whatever about the disqualification. There was a great deal of doubt about disqualification in this case until the Privy Council had given their decision about it. I do not think that I ought to say more about it than that.
There have been a number of cases in the past—in the more distant past—where Members have sat and voted when there were actual proceedings going on in the courts at the time. I think that it would be better not to sit and vote in those circumstances; but if one were asked to sit and to vote by the leader of one's party and the Chief Whip, are we all prepared to cross our hearts and to say that we should disobey that request? I do not know. Hon. Members must answer that question for themselves.
There was a point of great substance raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale). He said that the legal position was that if a manifestly disqualified candidate was elected, an election court might declare the next candidate on the poll to be the Member, and might regard the votes given to the manifestly disqualified candidate as having been deliberately thrown away. There certainly is authority for that proposition.
I would agree with my hon. Friend at once that it is conceivable that if, after the election of Mr. MacManaway to either House—either the Northern Ireland House or this House—the defeated candidate, who in the case of this House was Mr. Beattie, had brought an election petition, he might have persuaded the election court to hold that the votes cast for Mr. MacManaway were thrown away on the ground that everybody ought to have known, indeed must be presumed to have known, that ordained clergymen of the Irish Church were disqualified. That is a singularly artificial presumption, in view of the fact that we did not know that in this House, and that the prevalent legal view at the time was in fact that he was not disqualified at all.
It is possible that an election court might have taken that view. Even so, I would think it clearly unreasonable that a person for whom at the time the electors, by a majority, manifestly did not want to vote, should be returned as a Member of this House on a mere technicality. As far as I know, it never occurred to Mr. Beattie, or to anybody else at that time, to bring an election petition or to challenge the validity of Mr. MacManaway's election. The time for bringing an election petition has long since passed, and I know of no way, except by the decision of an election court, by which the seat could properly have been awarded to Mr. Beattie.
As the jurisdiction of the election court was not invoked, the matter was entirely at large for the House of Commons to do what it thought right. In the circumstances, in my view, the only possible course for the House of Commons of the United Kingdom to adopt was the one which in fact we deliberately decided to adopt. That was the course of declaring the seat vacant and issuing a writ for an election, in order that the constituents of Belfast, West, could decide who they wanted to represent them in a new election.
That leads me to the second point which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, raised in regard to the question whether this House should have done the same in relation to the seat in the Northern Ireland Parliament. As to that, I have not taken the view—and I feel pretty confident that, in this respect at any rate, I am right—that it would be appropriate for this House to decide whether or not a particular Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament was qualified to sit as a Member of that Parliament or not. It is one thing to say, as the Statute does, that the same law as to qualifications will apply to Northern Ireland as it does in the rest of the United Kingdom; it is quite another thing to say that this House will be the tribunal which will apply that law to the Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
It is fair, I think, in view of what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, to say that, at one stage in this matter, the Government of Northern Ireland took the view that this House


ought by Resolution to declare that the seat in the Northern Ireland Parliament was vacant. I took the opposite view. I think it would lead to very grave misunderstandings, and hon. Members on this side of the House may see at once the kind of misunderstanding to which it would lead if we were to start to interfere in the internal affairs of the Northern Ireland Parliament and to say whether any particular Member was qualified to sit.
The view which I expressed was that it was the duty of the Northern Ireland Parliament to apply the Statute law as passed by this Parliament and to enforce it in regard to any of their Members disqualified under that law. When I advised that course—and it is fair to say so—the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland agreed with me. I think it is reasonably clear that it was for the Northern Ireland Parliament to issue a writ for a new election, thereby declaring, in effect, that the seat was vacant. I understand that they have either done so or are about to do so. If they do not do it, it is, I suppose, open to any Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament to move for the issue of a new writ.
What would happen if this House passed Resolutions about the matter? The moment that this Parliament interfered to declare that this constituency in the Northern Ireland Parliament was vacant, it would, no doubt, be represented by ill-disposed persons in Northern Ireland, if any such there be, that what had caused this vacancy was the disgraceful interference of the United Kingdom Parliament in Northern Ireland affairs, and I cannot imagine anything more calculated to influence the votes of the electors or to result in the election being conducted on issues which were not fair and proper issues at all.
I am satisfied that, as a matter of proper procedure, the House of Commons in Northern Ireland is the sole master of its own constitution and composition in this matter, subject to this—that this House and the Northern Ireland House must apply the Statute law of the land. In the case of Northern Ireland, it has to apply the Statute law passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, but, in applying that law to any particular case and

deciding whether a particular Member is qualified or not under that law of the United Kingdom, it is for the House of Commons of each country to decide whether the law applies or not to individuals in their House. That seems to me to be the right position.
I have no doubt that, if the Parliament of Northern Ireland had taken steps to issue a writ for a new election and cause a new election to be held, that would have been much more in accordance with the democratic practice for each House to control its own composition, subject to the Statute law which binds it. Again, I think it is more in accordance with democratic practice that, where a disqualification of this kind arises, instead of producing an entirely technical result by declaring the next man on the poll to be the elected member, there should be a fresh election.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend, but may I ask if he will be a little more explanatory and specific on this point of the relationship of the Parliament of this country to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, in connection with this case of disqualification, because, as I read the Title and the contents of this Bill, the effect of it will apply to the sitting or voting as a Member of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom or as a Member of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. If it is not intended that this double purpose should be achieved, why is that the specific wording of this Bill?

The Attorney-General: That is intended. I am drawing a distinction between a Statute passed by this House and deliberately intended to apply to Northern Ireland and a Resolution of this House. We have no power to legislate for Northern Ireland by mere Resolution; indeed, we have generally no power to legislate for this country by mere Resolution. All we can do by Resolution of the House is to decide questions relating to our own composition and status and the qualifications of particular Members of our own House. What we can do, and what we have done, in regard to Northern Ireland, is to say, by the earlier Statute, that Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament must have certain qualifications or that they must not have certain disqualifications. What we have said, in


effect, is that Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament should have exactly the same kind of qualifications as for the United Kingdom Parliament, but, having laid that down by Statute in this Parliament, it is for each House separately to decide on the application of that general Statute to the composition of its own Chamber, and I think it would be no more proper for us to pass Resolutions upon the qualifications of a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament than it would be for the Northern Ireland Parliament to pass Resolutions upon the qualifications of particular Members of this House. We can pass Statutes affecting Northern Ireland but not move Resolutions about their House of Commons matters.
What we have decided to do is to pass a Statute, which we are entitled to do for the Northern Ireland Parliament as for any other part of the United Kingdom, which is a totally different matter. We are here, in agreement with the Northern Ireland Government, providing by Statute indemnification against breaches of the law which Mr. MacManaway may have committed in Northern Ireland, and that is a very different thing from attempting to deal with the question of whether he was qualified or not by a mere Resolution of this House.
This is an indemnity Bill, and, while we have had a good deal of criticism of Mr. MacManaway and some of his friends—and I must say that some of them have asked for criticism—we can, I think, afford to be generous over this, and I agree with every word of what the hon. Member for Shettleston said about this matter in his moving speech. I think we ought to leave this matter in the limbo of past and forgotten things. I have had so many "bygones" in my career that I am a firm believer in letting bygones be bygones. Moreover, when the Select Committee of this House reported on the question of Mr. MacManaway, they reported that he was entitled to sit, and that any doubt about the law should be cleared up by passing a declaratory Bill. The Government advised the House not to follow that advice. We suggested that this matter should be sent to the Privy Council so that the existing state of the law—

Mr. Bing: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend, but did he say that the Select Committee suggested a

declaratory Bill, because I think that, if he looks at the Minutes of Evidence, he will find that such a proposal was put forward, but was not decided upon?

The Attorney-General: I have not got the Report before me, but the Select Committee recommended that, if there was this doubt about the matter, it should be cleared up by a declaratory Bill which would result in Mr. MacManaway being entitled to sit.

Mr. Bing: No. If my right hon and learned Friend will allow me, may I say that the position was that the proposal for such a Bill was withdrawn, as can be seen from the Minutes of Evidence. All that the Committee recommended was that the matter should be cleared up by legislation, but they did not say whether the legislation was to be disqualifying or qualifying.

Professor Savory: Surely the words are these:
Your Committee, therefore, recommend to the House that immediate legislative action be taken to clarify the law.

The Attorney-General: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would be so kind as to let me have a copy of it?

Professor Savory: Certainly.

The Attorney-General: The Committee dealt with the legal views and said that there was a conflict in the matter. They finally agreed:
Your Committee feel with the Attorney-General that the arguments on both sides of the question are evenly balanced, and are unable to come to a unanimous conclusion on their merits. Your Committee, therefore, recommend to the House that immediate legislative action be taken to clarify the law.
My hon. Friend is quite right to that extent, although I do not think there was much doubt at the time that the intention was to clarify the law in an affirmative sense. Certainly, when we considered the Report, we decided to advise the House to take a different view. We thought that the proper course was not to clarify the law by a Bill declaring that the clergy of the Irish Church were not disqualified—and I said so in the clearest terms—but, first, to ascertain what was the law, and then to decide whether we wanted to alter it.
The House was persuaded to take that view, but it took that view on an express


undertaking which I gave that, if the Privy Council came to the conclusion that Mr. MacManaway was disqualified during the interval, we would introduce in this House a Bill to indemnify him from any consequence of it. I think that at that time the whole House agreed that that was a fair course. We were going to submit the matter for the advice of the Privy Council, and it was only right that, as we were taking that view and inviting the House not to accept the view of the Select Committee, we should undertake that if the view of the Privy Council turned out to be contrary to the one canvassed before the Select Committee, a Bill of Indemnity should be introduced. Here is the Bill of Indemnity on the promise of which the matter was sent to the Privy Council. I hope that the House will now feel that it is possible to give it a Second Reading, and, indeed, with the leave of the House, that we may get it through its other stages this evening.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — FIRE SERVICES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a short Bill, and I believe it to be a non-controversial Bill. Its purpose is to amend two Sections of the Fire Services Act, 1947, which relate to firemen's pensions. As the House will remember, the 1947 Act was an interesting example of de-nationalisation. It brought the National Fire Service to an end and placed the fire brigades under the control of the county councils and the councils of county boroughs.
The general administrative provisions of the 1947 Act have, on the whole, worked well, and whereas there are, of course, some improvements which have

been suggested, my right hon. Friend would not have submitted this Bill to the House this evening had it not been for a special difficulty which has arisen, the fact that the pensionable status of some members of fire brigades is in doubt. They believe, and the employing authorities believe, that they are earning pensions when it is probable that they are mistaken.
I am sure the House will agree that this is a matter which should be put right at once, and that is the main purpose of this Bill. I say "the main purpose," because we have taken the opportunity of the Bill to suggest to the House one or two minor Amendments in the pensions Sections of the Act. I should say at once that the local authority associations have been consulted, and that they agree to the Amendments proposed in this Bill. Two Sections are concerned. Section 26 is the one which empowers my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a Firemen's Pension Scheme by order. Subsection (2) contains a number of paragraphs detailing the various matters which may be covered by the Scheme, and subsection (5) gives power to vary the Scheme by subsequent orders.
Section 27 is the one which has led to the difficulty to which I have referred. It provides that, as regards members of fire brigades, the Firemen's Pension Scheme shall have effect to the exclusion of any other statutory pension provisions. This provision about exclusion from other pension enactments would cause no difficulty at all if all members of fire brigades were covered by the Firemen's Pension Scheme, but they are not. A fireman's job, as we all know, is an extremely hard and exacting one, and, because of this, his pension arrangements are much more liberal than those of a more sedentary worker.
For instance, a man of 55 who has had 30 years' service can retire on a full pension of two-thirds of his pay. Because they are so liberal, these pension arrangements are restricted to those members of fire brigades who are, in the words of Article 43 of the Scheme, "appointed on terms under which they are or may be required to engage in fire-fighting." There are, however, some members of fire brigades employed on ancillary duties, for instance, men and women engaged in control duties, who are not liable for fire


fighting duties, and are not, therefore, within the general scope of the Scheme.
In 1948, when the Scheme was made, it was decided not to include in it a separate set of provisions for the non-fire fighting members of brigades. It was so decided for this reason. It was believed that the result would be that, as local government employees, they would come under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, or the corresponding Scottish Act, or one of the various local Acts, and that, therefore, they would enjoy the same superannuation benefits as other men and women who are employed by local authorities.
What has happened? In many cases local authorities have acted in the belief that this is the position. As a result the appropriate pension contributions both from the men and women and from the employing authorities have been paid into the superannuation fund.
It may well be argued that the exclusion provisions in Section 27 (1) of the Fire Services Act, 1947, applies only to men and women who are in fact covered by the Firemen's Pension Scheme and, therefore, that those members of brigades employed on duties not involving any liability to fire fighting are not excluded from other pension enactments.
I am sure that hon. Members who study the matter carefully will agree that this is not a safe assumption, and that the position of these people in regard to pensions is at best uncertain. Clause 2 of the Bill therefore amends Section 27 of the original Act in such a way as to legalise what was done under the Act and under various local acts which applied to these men and women.
Clause 2(1) and the first part of Clause 2 (2) deal with the future. The second part of Clause 2 (2) deals with the past. The financial result of the change in the law effected by Clause 2 is that the pension contributions will be payable by the employing local authorities to the superannuation fund. These contributions will be in respect of between 900 and 1,000 men and women—it is difficult to estimate the exact figure—who do not now come under these Acts. As I have already explained, the pension contributions in question have already been paid in a number of cases under a misapprehension. Those

contributions include these payments which this Bill legalises. The total local authority liability for contribution to pension funds will be about £20,000 a year and the annual charge on the 25 per cent. Exchequer Grant will, therefore, be about £5,000. The authority for these charges on the Exchequer Grant is in Clause 3.
I have already explained that since legislation was necessary for the purpose I have just described opportunity has been taken to make one or two minor improvements in the pension provisions in Section 26 of the original Act. These minor amendments are in Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 1 (1) and (2) will give the Home Secretary power, which Section 26 of the 1947 Act does not appear to give at present, to consolidate the order made under the section embodying the Firemen's Pension Scheme and any subsequent orders which have been made amending the Scheme.
There have been a number of amendments. Hon. Members will appreciate that in 1948 when the new fire brigades came into existence it was to be expected that the earlier careers of the members would vary widely in character. As a result the Firemen's Pension Scheme is complicated, particularly as regards provisions for counting earlier service as pensionable service. In the years since 1948 points have arisen which need amendment.
Consolidation would simplify the scheme, particularly as a number of points covered in earlier orders were merely transitional and need not be included in any consolidation. Of course, any consolidation under Section 26 (6) of the 1947 Act would have to be approved by the Treasury; and the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales and for Scotland respectively would have to be consulted. Clause 1 (3) is concerned with small drafting amendments to Section 26 (2) of the 1947 Act.
This is not a very exciting or interesting Bill possibly, but it is important, especially to those men and women covered by Clause 2, and I commend it to the House.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: As the Under-Secretary of State has said, this is not a very exciting Bill, but at first sight it is a very difficult one to understand and I should like to thank him for


the way he has explained it. There are two points which arise out of the Bill which I should like him to comment on if he will, later, by leave of the House.
The Bill appears to provide for two things. One is consolidation. We are all entirely agreed about that. The other is to clear up the anomaly to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I think I am right in saying it was the intention of the 1947 Act that members of fire brigades engaged on ancillary duties should continue their existing pension arrangements as, under that Act, they would be excluded from the Firemen's Pension Scheme.
As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, under the Scheme which has been introduced, fire fighters alone are embraced and the definition of a fireman in the regulations is someone who is liable to be called upon to be engaged actually in fire-fighting. It appears, therefore, that the ancillary employee in the fire brigade service has fallen completely between two stools. He is not a fire fighter under the regulations and he cannot carry on with his present pension arrangements because doubts have been cast on the legality of that. The Home Secretary, therefore, has introduced these regulations to clear up that point.
As far as we go, that is all right, but there may be some authorities—the hon. Gentleman will tell us if there are—who, owing to the doubt which has been cast upon the legality of continuing their schemes for non-fire-fighting members of their fire service, may have wound up their schemes. In such a case a man will now be faced with the position that when the scheme is restarted he has to pay back contributions or has to give up certain benefits.
Clause 2 (3) refers to the fact that any person who would be liable to pay contributions can give one month's notice, presumably, of his intention not to pay. It seems to me that some injustice may arise here. A member of a fire brigade in this position may be suddenly faced with having to pay back contributions for a benefit of which he would never have been deprived had not this mistake arisen in the drafting of the 1947 Act and in the regulations. It seems to me that there is a case for consideration whether, in those circumstances, such a person should be credited with contributions.
We have the same psychological approach here as that at the introduction of P.A.Y.E., when it became apparent that it would be very difficult to collect Income Tax at the end of the year. P.A.Y.E. was introduced to deal with the problem so that small contributions could be made at regular intervals. Here, for the same reason, if, through the abrogation of the scheme, anybody is called upon to pay back contributions there is a case of hardship and a case for the Home Secretary to inquire whether those contributions for which the man might now become liable should be credited to him.
That is the one point of substance I wish to raise on the Bill, but there is another small point I might mention. It concerns our procedure. The introduction of these regulations is subject to the negative Resolution procedure in Parliament and, having regard to the fact that this amending Bill widens the scope of the schemes the Home Secretary might introduce, I suggest that it would be a good thing to see whether an affirmative Resolution should be substituted when future schemes are introduced. Apart from those two points, however, I agree that the Bill is not controversial and is certainly necessary.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I wish to emphasise a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston). Back contributions are certainly a burden in these days. Every hon. Member knows what a trouble it is for people to pay back contributions of P.A.Y.E. when the Income Tax rates are changed. The reason is that there is nowadays no margin for anybody to save anything. As a consequence, back contributions are a considerable burden.
I hope the Under-Secretary will consider two problems. First, there is the position of the man who does not elect to be excluded. Not only will he be called upon to pay back contributions, but he will already have paid contributions which he cannot recover. For the privilege of correcting the Secretary of State's errors of drafting, if I may put it that way, and in consequence of the blunders made in drafting the Act, he is mulcted twice: first, in respect of contributions he has paid and cannot recover and, second, in respect of back contributions he will be required to pay to enter the scheme.


I hope the Under-Secretary of State will consider that matter so that it may be put right before the Bill goes further. It is, of course, a Bill which everyone supports.
Would the Under-Secretary also consider whether one month's notice is long enough? Experience so far has been that every period of notice laid down by the statute or the regulations has had to be doubled. That is not surprising. Anybody who has to read and study the masses of small printing in these regulations would have the greatest difficulty in deciding for himself, I suggest, whether it would be to his advantage to elect one way or the other. It is a complicated matter, tiresome even for a professional lawyer. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that it would be much better to give a longer period of notice.
For my part, I support the Bill. We all agree that the life of the fireman is harsh and uncertain and even if he can obtain a full pension at a relatively early age, who are we to complain about that? We do not have the charming task of climbing long ladders to rescue flaming femininity from the top floor window, or the less gallant but not less difficult task of slipping into one's trousers and sliding down a slippery pole at one and the same time.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: Passions will not run high on this Bill, I am sure, and I want to make some further comments on the points made by my hon. Friends. I feel that it is about time something was done to assist the non-professional fireman and I wonder whether the consolidated scheme which it intended to introduce when the Bill is passed will include some kind of provision for the voluntary fireman.
In many rural towns in the country there are small non-professional bodies of firemen—ordinary citizens, normally engaged in all kinds of other work who, as soon as the bell rings or the siren sounds, are prepared to drop their work to man the fire-engine and to put out the fire often, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) pointed out, at considerable risk to themselves. These people do a first-class job. They are carrying out voluntary service for the community in the very highest

sense of the term, and I have not the slightest doubt that if any hon. Member was asked to carry out the same duties for the same remuneration he would show great hesitation before he did so.
I understand that there are only three types of remuneration which the voluntary fireman receives. The first is an absurdly small retaining fee for the year. The second payment is a sum which he receives if he is called out to attend a fire. Finally, I believe he also receives an additional sum for being at the fire—so much per hour. One might say, as a consequence, that he has a vested interest in the fire continuing as long as possible, although I know that that is not the case.
In my opinion, therefore, something should be done to safeguard the interests of these people as much as possible. I do not ask the Under-Secretary necessarily to answer me at once, but I hope he will give the matter further consideration and see whether some system of pensions cannot be introduced for these voluntary firemen, who do a first-class job throughout the country at great risk to themselves and for very little pay. Many of these men run a serious risk of personal injury when they carry out these duties. We might have to consider the case of a man who is in highly paid employment. If he is injured, he might be out of employment for a long time and receive very little compensation—nothing at all comparable to what he would have earned in his ordinary employment.
Apart from those points, I wish the Bill well. I think it is overdue and I hope we shall give it a speedy passage through the House.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. de Freitas: With the permission of the House, I would like to reply, quite briefly. On a small technical Bill like this it is difficult to discuss such points as these without dealing with what are really Committee matters. So far as the point about back contributions is concerned, the Bill allows the fireman to elect to be excluded. No doubt arrangements could be made for him to pay the back contributions in instalments. That does not meet the point put by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster), however, and we shall have to consider that matter.
The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) suggested that there should be an affirmative Resolution. I should not like to answer that at the moment, but should like first to consider it. So far as voluntary firemen are concerned, their case would not, of course, be appropriate for consolidation because it is not covered by the present laws.

Mr. Hay: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The first clause of the Bill gives the Home Secretary power to introduce a consolidated set of regulations. I was merely asking that when he does so he should also consider whether the regulations ought to contain something to deal with voluntary firemen as well as something to deal with the professional firefighter and the ancillary firefighter.

Mr. de Freitas: I will study the position of the voluntary fireman. I was distressed to find that he might have a vested interest in the continuation of a fire, although I do not think that is a serious point, nor did the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). I will certainly look into the problem which he explained.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — FIRE SERVICES [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees) [King's Recommendation signified].

[Colonel SIR CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend sections twenty-six and twenty-seven of the Fire Services Act, 1947, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable under any enactment out of moneys so provided which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session amending those sections—

(i) in respect of employment which is treated for the purposes of the Firemen's Pension Scheme as if it were employment as a member of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of the said Act of 1947; or

(ii) in respect of the exclusion of statutory pension schemes other than the Firemen's Pension Scheme in relation to employment as, or treated as aforesaid as employment as, a member of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of that Act;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums required by the said Act of the present Session to be so paid.—[Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS (9th APRIL)

MINERAL WORKINGS

Resolution reported:
That, under any Act of the present Session to establish a fund for financing the restoration of certain land used for working ironstone by opencast operations, and to make provision for certain other purposes:—

1. There shall be charged any increase in the sums payable by way of development charge under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session;
2. There shall be paid into the Exchequer any sums required by the said Act of the present Session to be so paid—

(a) by the Minister of Local Government and Planning out of the Ironstone Restoration Fund established thereunder;
(b) by the Central Land Board under section sixty-eight of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.

Orders of the Day — MINERAL WORKINGS [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a fund for financing the restoration of certain land used for working ironstone by opencast operations, and to make provision for certain other purposes, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) The issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required by the said Act of the present Session to be so issued—

(a) in respect of contributions payable under the said Act to the Minister of Local Government and Planning out of payments falling to be paid in pursuance of section fifty-eight of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, in respect of certain interests in land, and interest on such contributions;
(b) in respect of sums paid into the Exchequer by the Central Land Board under section sixty-eight of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, in pursuance of any provision of the said Act of the present Session;


and the application of sums paid into the Exchequer as aforesaid in the redemption or repayment of debt or, in so far as they represent interest, in the payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.

(2) The raising of money by the Treasury, in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, for the purpose of providing sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund as mentioned in paragraph (1) of this resolution, or of providing for the replacement of sums so issued.
(3) The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any administrative expenses of the Minister of Local Government and Planning under the said Act of the present Session (including remuneration or allowances paid to the members of any committee thereunder) and any other expenses of his under that Act—

(i) in making advances to the Ironstone Restoration Fund established under that Act;
(ii) in making contributions to the said Fund at the rate of three farthings for each ton of ironstone in respect of which contributions are payable by operators under that Act;
(iii) in paying compensation for damage or disturbance caused in the exercise of powers of entry conferred by that Act;

(b) any administrative expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said Act of the present Session and any other expenses of his under that Act—

(i) in acquiring or in managing or farming worked ironstone land;
(ii) in paying compensation for damage or disturbance caused in the exercise of powers of entry conferred by that Act;

(c) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport (other than expenses incurred in the construction or improvement of high ways) under the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the temporary stopping up or diversion of highways, and any sums payable into the Road Fund for the purpose of defraying expenses of that Minister which are payable out of that fund by virtue of the said provisions;
(d) any payments required to be made by the Central Land Board in pursuance of the said Act of the present Session in respect of expenses incurred in complying with conditions of planning permission for the winning and working of minerals, and any payments required by the said Act to be made by the said Board into the Exchequer under section sixty-eight of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947;
(e) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948.

Orders of the Day — LIME SUBSIDY SCHEME

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Scheme, dated 22nd March, 1951, entitled the Agricultural Lime (Amendment) Scheme, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 513), a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th March, be annulled.
The history of this matter, which is of importance to agriculture, is that in 1937 Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, then Minister of Agriculture, brought in a scheme for giving producers a subsidy on the lime they used on their land. That operated throughout the war, and the present Government, when they came into power, very wisely, in my view, continued that scheme; and in 1947 they added to it by giving a subsidy of half of the cost of spreading the lime. We have had that subsidy on spreading lime now for three full years, and it has had very beneficial results. As a result, up to this year more lime has been spread each year, more machines have been used, and more mechanical spreading of lime has been carried out.
On 22nd February the Minister of Agriculture announced a change of policy. He decided that he must go back to the pre-war plan, merely giving subsidies on lime and transport, and discontinue the subsidy on the spreading of lime. At the same time, he took other similar action with the subsidies on fertilisers for grassland. He compensated for that by agreeing that the effects of the discontinuance of these two subsidies and certain other subsidies should be taken into account during the February price review.
I think it is quite clear, if hon. Members will study the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, that the discontinuance of these two subsidies was designed to take effect after the end of spring cultivation, in the case of the spreading of lime, and in the case of the grassland fertilisers, from 1st July, so that the summer grass might receive fertilisers this year under subsidy arrangements. The unfortunate thing in this matter, of course, has been the weather. In fact, spring cultivation had not in many places been begun on 31st March, when the discontinuance of subsidy for the spreading of lime operated. The complaint I make to the House is that the Minister should not, in view of these


weather conditions, have introduced this subsidy discontinuance on 21st March, but should have delayed it.
I put down a Question to the Minister on this very subject on 5th April, and I think it is important that the House should study the Minister's answer to my request that this subsidy should remain in being until 31st May in order to allow farmers to carry out the contracts which they had entered into with their merchants and get this lime spread on the land. The Minister, in his reply, said he could not do that, and said, as a reason:
Unfortunately, we could not foresee what the weather conditions were likely to be when the Order was made on 23rd March, 1951."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 376.]
If I may correct the Minister, the Order was, in fact, made on 20th March, 1951. However, I do not think that that is really material to the main point.
I suggest to the House that it was abundantly clear to the Minister on 20th March that the chosen date, 31st March, was far too early in view of the weather conditions. I should have thought that it would have been sufficiently clear to him by 22nd February when he made his announcement to the House. But in the intervening 30 days there has been a record for March rainfall—a rainfall I believe unparalleled in this century of our history. The position is, going by the statistics that we can collect, that the rainfall in the first three months of this year has been 13.3 inches, compared with 8.8 inches last year and 5 inches, which is the normal rainfall for the first three months of the year, in 1948.
The effect of the Minister's action in this matter has been disastrous. I believe that the figure of the amount of lime that has been spread up to 31st March—the Minister will, I think, agree—is 500,000 tons less than it was last year. Everybody connected with this branch of agriculture was expecting that the figures would be greater than last year, and, indeed, the Minister had so budgeted in his Budget estimates. Therefore, we have a picture of countryside where no work has been done and where the lime should be put on the land but has not been put on the land, which

is going to have, unless remedied, very serious results for agriculture.
What has happened in the last three weeks? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us greater details. Farmers, owing to the discontinuance of this subsidy, have everywhere been abandoning their contracts. Their contracts are based on figures which took in an element for the subsidy, which is, in fact, usually 5s. per ton on burnt lime and 3s. 6d. per ton on other lime. As a result of the Minister's Order, which, I hope, he will change, these contracts are being thrown over. I know in the East Riding of Yorkshire of one trader alone who has had contracts of 1,000 tons thrown over in the last few weeks—which will, I think, show that 50 per cent. of the contracts for lime in the East Riding outstanding have now been revoked. In the Midland counties 50 per cent. of the contracts for spreading of lime have been cancelled in the last three weeks.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): Contracts for lime or lime spreading?

Mr. Turton: For spreading lime. In Cumberland, 600 tons have been cancelled in the last few days with one trader. In North-West Yorkshire 100 tons have been cancelled. In the Home Counties the position is rather different. There 5 per cent. of the contracts have been cancelled. I have been working in the last two days finding out that evidence. It is not easy evidence to get, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will give us further details of what is happening in other parts of the country.
I think what is quite clear is that a very grave situation is developing owing to the fact that this order has been wrongly dated. I am not arguing against 22nd February decision. That is past history. Whether it was right or wrong is not for me to argue tonight, because the effect of it has been taken into account in the February Price Review. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to argue against that.
I hope the Minister will realise that in that February Price Review it was assumed that this lime would have been spread. In other words, farmers are having to shoulder an extra burden of


something like £90,000 as a result of the weather conditions and the early date of this order, but the hardship is not evenly spread throughout the country and I have been at pains to try to find out the position in that respect. I have been put in a little difficulty, because, while, normally, the figures supplied by the Ministry for what lime has been spread in the months always come out on 16th or 17th of each month, for some reason, of which I am not aware, in this particular month it has been varied so that they are not available to the farmers or to the trade today; for a curious reason they are two days late.
Therefore, I must confine my figures to January and February of this year, the two current months, and compare that with the previous year. In my own district of the six Northern counties of England, in these two months last year 200,000 tons of lime were spread on the land. This year the figure has dropped to 128,000—a shortfall of something like 72,000 tons. But that is very uneven. In my own county the figures have dropped from 26,000 tons to 16,000 tons, yet in a county like Westmorland, which normally enjoys a very heavy rainfall at this and other times of the year, more lime was, in fact, spread in those two months than in the same two months in the previous year. That shows how very uneven has been the effect of the untimely withdrawal of this subsidy. Looking at the position in the other areas, we find in the Eastern area that the drop has been from 124,000 tons spread to 80,000 spread—a drop of about 50 per cent. For a county like the Isle of Ely the drop has been from 8,600 tons to 4,400 tons.
I believe that the effect of this mistake on the part of the Minister—and I believe it is a mistake—is most clearly seen in the West of England. There, in the county of Somerset, the spreading this year has been only 20 per cent. of what they normally spread in the first two months of the year. Those of us who travel about the country realise that a great deal of this land is waterlogged, and that it is impossible not only to put the lime on the land but to get the lime wagons on to the farm. It is for that reason that I ask the Minister to reconsider this order, which is unfair to agriculture and is causing uneven hardship throughout the country. I ask him to withdraw this Order,

and, later, to introduce a new order discontinuing this subsidy, possibly from 31st May, or, as I believe the trade are asking, from 30th June or 31st July.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to second the Motion.
It is the view of many of us who are directly concerned with the farming industry that the Order which the Minister of Agriculture has made withdrawing the subsidy on the spreading of lime is both unseasonable and unreasonable. It has been Government policy right through from the war years until now—and a very wise policy—to encourage farmers to use more lime, and particularly to get economic working at the lime works to encourage farmers to apply this lime to the land during the winter months.
Obviously, it is desirable to spread the load of getting lime, getting it transported and distributed on to the land. Fortunately, there has sprung up the practice of the suppliers of lime spreading the lime that they bring to the farms for the farmer—a practice well liked, not only by farmers but by farm workers, because lime spreading can be a very uncomfortable and unpleasant job. Therefore, the arrangement of the subsidy covering not only the actual lime but the spreading of it on the ground has suited all sections of the agricultural community, and I would stress that it has been an agreed policy for a good many years that as much of this lime as possible should be put down in the winter.
In this Order, to which we object, the Minister brings to a sudden end the subsidy on the spreading of lime, and he has chosen a very strange date at which to apply this edict. Our farms, whether in the North or in the South, have been waterlogged from November until March. Indeed, the official rainfall figures show that between November and March in this immediate past winter, we have endured no less than 22 inches of rain as against 16 inches in the winter of 1949–50, and only 11 inches in the winter of 1948–49. It has been an exceptionally wet winter for all of us, and with the land waterlogged, as it has been, it has been impossible to get lime delivered to the farms, and, more particularly, to get it spread on the land.
Now, of course, conditions are entirely different. I was at home on the farm this morning and it was a real delight to see everybody busy, and not only doing their cultivating and sowing but also applying lime. But these are jobs which should have been done in February and March, and which the Minister no doubt imagined were being done, and thought that the winter liming season would have been finished at its normal time by the end of March.
In fact, this year it has happened differently, not through any fault of the farmers but because we have had this exceptional rainfall, and it has just not been possible to get on to the land. We now find that this particular form of assistance, the spreading subsidy, has been removed, and some farmers are put in a difficult position. It is a difficult position also for some merchants who have undertaken contracts to supply and spread lime, who now find that they must break that contract which they have made with their farmer customer because there is no longer this Government subsidy applying to the spreading of lime.
The Minister of Agriculture told us last Thursday that he could not foresee, on 23rd March, when he said the Order was made, that the Order was so bad. Surely it is a matter of the Order having by that date been already so bad. It was obvious to anyone who had any close contacts with agriculture that the land just would not carry the lorries and distributors to apply the lime. It is very strange that the Minister did not know this. One wonders whether there are any windows in Whitehall out of which he could look to see that it was raining, and so realise what effect that must have on the land.
Does no one in the Ministry of Agriculture read the reports which the Ministry publishes from time to time on farming conditions? I should like to refresh the Minister's mind on the wording of the report published by his Ministry on 9th April, 1951, under the heading "Weather Conditions." This is what the Ministry said:
The weather during March continued cold and wet. Frequent heavy storms, following the abnormal rainfall of the previous months, have resulted in considerable flooding and waterlogging in low-lying land.

The Department of Agriculture for Scotland also publishes a monthly report on farming conditions, and no doubt the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland had an opportunity of studying this report. This is what St. Andrew's House said:
Weather, Frost, snow, sleet and rain hampered progress with ploughing and other outdoor work, which remained considerably in arrears.
That is what the official reports said, one from Whitehall and one from St. Andrew's House, but Ministers, both in London and in Edinburgh, seem to have been sublimely unconscious of what was happening on the farms.
It may be said that the Minister cannot be expected to follow what is happening in the farming world or to recognise the implications of changes in Government policy, and that he must be guided by the advice that is given to him by his officials, or possibly by the officials of the Treasury, who are anxious tidily at the end of the financial year to close this part of the lime subsidy. Surely it is the proper responsibility of the Minister to weigh tidiness, as put forward by his civil servants, backed no doubt by the Treasury, what will be the effect on the land and upon food production. I know that the present Minister has not the benefit of the liaison officers from the counties that the previous Minister of Agriculture had during the war, but he has contact with the county agricultural executive committees, and many other people upon whom he can call for advice.
For example, the National Farmers' Union are not very far away from Whitehall. They are in Bedford Square. They were very close to Whitehall recently, and I should have thought that the Minister could have called upon Sir James Turner, or someone in close touch with farming conditions, and told him what he proposed. He might have looked though the window and said to Sir James: "It looks to me as though there has been a lot of rain. There are some puddles in Whitehall. Is this going to affect the farms? Will it mean that the lime which should have been applied to the land has not been applied?" He would have got a straight answer from the N.F.U., as he always does to any question he puts to them.
This kind of practice from the Minister of Agriculture of going about blindfold


and simply having regard to what is administratively tidy but not necessarily desirable in practice, brings the Minister into disrepute with farmers and with the merchants who have to supply farmers' requirements. That is unfortunate, because the Ministry of Agriculture earns good marks in comparison with other Ministries with whom farmers and other traders in the rural areas have to deal, but in this case it seems that the Minister did not have any practical advice about the steps that were proposed.
I am not arguing whether the lime subsidy is good or bad or whether it should be continued indefinitely. I have my own views about farm subsidies generally, but this is not the proper time to expound them. We have to decide tonight, on this Prayer, whether it is reasonable for the Minister to cut off part of the subsidy at a moment when farmers have been unable to complete the lime-spreading operations of the winter season. I woud stress the point to the Parliamentary Secretary that some farmers have had the benefit of the subsidy in spreading their lime because they were in an area, possibly East Anglia, where they did not have the heavy rainfall that we had in the West, in Scotland and in Yorkshire.
Some farmers have been fortunate. Winter ended earlier for them than for the rest of the country. In my own county of Berkshire we have been middling lucky and middling unlucky, so far as the application of lime is concerned. In February of this year we got 1,450 tons spread and in January 1,418 tons. Those two figures for February and January, 1951, run out at 2,800 tons, compared with 3,500 tons of lime applied to the land in Berkshire in February and January of 1950. So we have not been able to get through as much lime-spreading work in the present winter as we did in the previous winter.
I would say to the Minister—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will listen—that he can even now act reasonably. He cannot recover the mistake that he has made in fixing the date for the end of this lime-spreading subsidy, but he can act reasonably by accepting this Prayer and allowing the main Order to run on until the end of May. Then, if he thinks fit, he can bring forward this Order, which we say is unseasonable and

unreasonable today. If he brings it forward in May we shall say: "Right. Everybody has had a fair chance to complete his liming operations for the winter season which has been unduly and exceptionally prolonged. We shall have no objection to the lime-spreading subsidy being cut off."
I hope that the Minister will consider that suggestion. He will get pretty complete agreement on both sides of the House if he will withdraw this Order tonight, agree with us, and bring it forward in May, when we shall say: "We think you are doing quite rightly and reasonably."

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: I want to add a word in support of what has been said, particularly with regard to Scotland. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary has just gone out of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I beg his pardon. I hope that he will not use his debating skill in order to exploit the position. He is a very good debater but I hope he is not going to fall back upon telling us that this matter has been taken into account in the price review and that the increased cost of spreading lime is being looked after there. The increased cost is taken into account in the review in respect of the period 1951–52 but the price review for 1950–51 did not include the increased costs which fall upon industry in consequence of the removal of the subsidy for spreading.
There is another point which should be taken note of. Even if it were a fact that the removal of this subsidy had been taken into account in this year's prices, no account has been taken of the fact that very large schemes of land reclamation are in process at the present moment in Scotland for which for many years there will be no return in the form of prices for the lime that is being applied to the land. Therefore, these people are subject entirely to these increased costs. Although we may differ about this matter in this House, I do not think that any agriculturist would—

Mr. G. Brown: I am not quite sure about the hon. Member's last point. He said that Scotsmen who have put the lime on and therefore have had the lime-spreading subsidy—which they would not have got if they had not put it on—had


borne the whole cost. How can that be? They have had the subsidy, and they can have no complaint?

Mr. Snadden: What I am saying is that the reclaiming of land which has been broken up and spread with lime will not be reflected in the price review for a considerable number of years.

Mr. Brown: The farmers have had the subsidy.

Mr. Snadden: They have not got the subsidy.

Mr. Brown: Yes, they have.

Mr. Snadden: It is being taken away because they have not put the lime on their land yet. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has followed my point. We are all agreed about the need for liming from the point of view of soil fertility and putting bone into cattle. Scotland has a very high proportion of marginal and poor land. Some 10 per cent. of our farms are marginal farms, and there is an enormous need for lime to be applied to them. The figures for Scotland reflect a very substantial response to the land fertility scheme of 1937, which was amended in 1947. In 1938–39 we applied 234,000 tons and in 1949–50 the application of lime had increased by 40 per cent. These figures are taken from the Report of the Department of Agriculture for 1950.
An increased subsidy was made available for spreading in 1947. The main problem of farmers at present is how to keep down the cost of production while at the same time maintaining soil fertility. The figures I have just given show that the assistance given in 1947 has proved a very valuable incentive for the application of large quantities of lime all over the country. We are not asking for the revocation of the Order, but merely for the postponement of its operation. The effect of the removal of the subsidy will be to raise costs and discourage farmers from applying lime, especially to the poorer land; and the marginal areas are the areas from which we expect to receive the major impetus in our expansion programme.
We are merely asking the hon. Gentleman to postpone the operation of the Order because of the abnormal weather conditions which we have suffered. I

have been farming for the best part of 30 years, and, with one exception, I do not remember a year when we have had to put up with more appalling conditions. We had a frightful harvest. In Scotland the hay stood out until well into November. That has, however, proved to be very valuable to the hill farmers, even though it was what we call "badly got," because it could still be sent to the hill farms, and today it is keeping the hill herds in the glens "ticking over" in the middle of blizzards and snow storms. That was followed by one of the worst springs we have ever known.
It amuses me when I hear people talking about efficiency and saying that our lime should be spread by this time. I thought I was efficient, but I am beginning to think I have been extremely inefficient. I got my lime early, and it is spread on the land, but if I had been sensible I should have held up the spreading because probably hundreds of tons of the lime that I put on my farm have been washed down the drains. If I had waited until now and got my lime delivered direct to my fields and had it spread immediately by a contractor—as the efficient farmer does—I should probably have been a good deal more efficient. If it is true, as the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) says, that agriculture has been "feather-bedded," all I can say is that this year the feather bed is extremely wet.
This is the crux of the issue. The good farmer spreads by contract. He cannot store his lime for the winter because he requires the space to store ordinary fertilisers like sulphate of ammonia, superphosphates, and so on, and so the majority of farmers have their lime brought to the fields direct and spread immediately. I do not know anyone in my part of the world who has been able to do anything at all on the land since Christmas, and the Order will be extremely hard on many farmers who placed their contracts in the autumn for the delivery of lime but told the contractors to postpone the delivery of the lime as it could not be spread, because they will now lose the subsidy on the spreading which would normally have taken place.
The removal of the assistance will hit the small man more than anyone else. The small man does not have the machinery to spread lime on his land, and in any event this year no farmer will have


the time to do it now because he will have to crowd into one month the work of three months. The small farmers who had arranged a contract for the delivery of the lime to their fields and for its spreading by a contractor will be penalised unless the lime was delivered before 31st March.
The Minister ought to have realised the effect of the removal of the subsidy. I cannot imagine anybody in his senses not realising months ago that this would be one of the worst seasons we have experienced. The land has remained waterlogged throughout the winter, and if the soil is heavy clay—many acres of our land are—it takes a long time to dry out. I should have thought that the Minister would realise that by bringing forward such an Order he would be penalising producers in many areas of the country who are doing their best.
I ask him seriously to consider the reasonable plea put forward by my hon. Friend, simply to postpone the operation of this Order. We are not asking for it to be abolished, but for a reasonable chance to be given to men who are attempting to do their best in the national interest and who are today facing ever-increasing costs. Surely it is not impossible even now for the Minister to reverse the decision and so allow these people to get the benefits others have had.

8.29 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I will not detain the House long, but I want to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that so far as the Isle of Ely is concerned we have spread only half the lime we spread last year. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) said later, I can assure the House that we have had a winter in East Anglia which has certainly been the worst for a long time, probably within living memory. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), who I see in his place, will bear that out. I am sure.
To give some indication of how backward we are with the programme this year, only last week I was talking to a senior member of the sugar beet industry who told me that, normally, by this time of the year over 10,000 acres are sown in the district of the Ely factory and that only 600 had been sown by the

beginning of last week. Obviously, from the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for the Isle of Ely for January and February, of 8,600 tons last year and only 4,400 this year, we rank for as much consideration as the hon. Member for Newbury who, I thought, was trying to imply that Berkshire had had a worse winter than we had. If he had been to East Anglia, he would have known what a bad time we have had.
This is not just a plea for the farmer alone. Cancelled contracts affect those industries which are ancillary to agriculture but which are essential to it, without which agriculture could not hope to carry on, and to which the farmers are anxious to play fair. I do not think it is out of spite that these contracts for spreading have been cancelled. It is far more likely that the farmers are so behind that they feel they will not be able to put the work in hand.
That would have an effect which I should think the hon. Gentleman will want to bear in mind. That is, it would affect the fertility of our land, although probably only to a small degree. Let us not forget, however, that for nearly 10 years now we have been producing from our land as intensively as possible. If we ignore some process of our farming which ought to be done, which is designed to keep up the fertility of our land, we shall be making a great mistake.
The trouble is that if we let it go for one year we may get into the habit and repeat that another year. We have already seen a tendency to overcrop in East Anglia, particularly in the Fen area, and to rely too much on artificials. However, perhaps this is not the place to debate a subject which Lady Eve Balfour would like to deal with, namely, whether we should dispense with artificials altogether. Most practical farmers would agree that we want a mixture of farm manure, lime and other fertilisers. All have a part to play in heartening the fertility of our land. Lime plays a specially important part and we should make a great mistake if we did not do everything possible to encourage farmers to put lime on their land this year.
I am not quite certain why this Order has been introduced at this time. Considering the winter, considering the


February Price Review, so far as it affects dairy farmers particularly, it can be said that farmers have had a rough winter both financially and physically. This seems to me to be almost adding insult to the injury which the weather had done them.
It has been said in the House from time to time that one of the reasons why we are wedded to 1st April for so many things in this country is not so much the fact that we tend to be fools, but rather the fact that on one occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer was suffering from influenza on 31st December. Therefore, we have to have our financial year starting on 1st April.
I cannot help feeling that one of the reasons why the Order has been introduced is because its date of operation happens to tally with the beginning of the financial year. I humbly suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the House that this is a matter which we must be careful not to allow to develop into the position where the convenience of the individual is overridden by the convenience of the State. If it is considered necessary—and I am sure that it is by the Government—that there should be a subsidy or that the subsidy should be taken care of inside the February Price Review, then if, purely for the sake of administrative convenience, we deny the right of any number of persons to take advantage of what is considered to be necessary, we are making the person subsidiary to the State. I still maintain that the State should exist for the convenience of individuals, no matter how few they are.
I am not prepared even to estimate the number of farmers who are affected, but nevertheless just because it suits the Department better to have the Order introduced on 1st April and to run for a full year, that is no reason why we should not make quite certain that farmers who, through no fault of their own, have been delayed in having lime spread over their land, should be deprived of what other farmers have been allowed to get and which has been considered to be necessary for them.
I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will agree to the proposal of my hon. Friend simply to delay the operation of the Order. One of these days we shall have to find some way of amending

Orders instead of having always to reject the whole of an Order. How much simpler it would be if tonight we could amend merely the date of operation of the Order. As it is, we have to reject the whole thing, which means that the Department have to go through the rigmarole of representing it. In present circumstances, that is the only thing they could do. Let us hope that some day we can make small alterations to Orders, without wasting a great deal of the time of the Department or of the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be conciliatory in this matter and will delay the operation of this Order.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Dye: I have listened with interest to most of the debate and I am sorry that I missed the opening speech of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). It seems to me that everybody now knows about the weather conditions and that farmers have experienced, perhaps, their worst season in preparing the land for crops for the coming year. This, obviously, will have a very big financial effect upon the incomes of the farming community. Many millions of pounds less will be received because of the smaller crops and the adverse effect also upon stocks.
Therefore, if we look at the problem from the point of view of weather conditions on the farms, the amount of money that will be saved in the payment for the spreading of lime is infinitesimal and can-not be weighed in the balance. If, therefore, the Minister gave considerable notice that the subsidy on spreading would cease this year, and this was taken into account at the February Price Review, I cannot see where the argument arises.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member comes from Norfolk, which has not suffered over the withdrawal of the lime subsidy nearly as much as other counties. Norfolk had a short-fall of only 1,000 tons out of 30,000 tons in the first two months. The answer is that the benefit would go to the waterlogged counties, to people who have really suffered losses by the weather. That is why I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary not to help Norfolk, for instance, where conditions are favourable, but to help counties like Somerset.

Mr. Dye: I do not know what the hon. Member knows about Norfolk. I came


from Norfolk this morning. I was up on my farm at 6 a.m. and did a day's work before I came to the House, so I do know what I am talking about. I did not leave home until the afternoon and I drove all the way here. I know exactly what are the conditions in Norfolk and all the way up by road. It is quite true that adverse weather conditions in Norfolk have been as bad as in any other part of the country.
Some hon. Members opposite are more used, of course, to adverse weather conditions in parts of Yorkshire and Scotland and they ought not to find it necessary to grumble so much about them. They have been brought up under those conditions and experienced them all their lives. Even under Conservative Governments there have been adverse weather conditions at times but in those days the farmers did not have the privilege of grumbling about a small subsidy being taken off because the subsidy was not there to be taken off.
Hon. Members are trying to argue that contracts have been broken, and that if this Prayer is successful tonight, and the Order is withdrawn, the contracts will be carried out. The lime will be delivered and spread. If it has been delivered before 1st April it can be spread at any time within three or six months and it makes no difference to the subsidy. But if, now, instead of being delivered by 1st April a date in May is put in the Order by some means or other contracts entered into will be carried out and farmers, already harassed by arrears of work, will add to their work by spreading more lime, or having it spread for them.
Surely, as soon as the farmer can get on his land he will get on with the essential job of cultivating. [Interruption.] Surely the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) is not going to interrupt. Only a few days ago he told the House that we did not want any more subsidies. He would like to see them all go and the guaranteed prices go with them; let us have a free scramble with high prices.
To argue that we can alter the whole business and alter the February Price Review to bring it all in line with a new date does not seem to make sense. No one expected this type of subsidy to remain a permanent feature of British agriculture. Quite rightly, such subsidies were introduced as incentives to

do the right thing by the land and to produce the crops and stock which the country needs. But we cannot go on for ever with a system of subsidies to induce farmers to do a certain thing. Good farmers ought to do the right thing, whether there is a subsidy or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "And stop it raining?"] Rain has come down, off and on, for centuries, and will do so long after we are dead. It cannot be argued that because of rain a farmer should have a subsidy. At some time in the year the farmer is glad to see rain.
It is suggested that there should be an incentive to the seller of lime to go to the farmer and say, "If you will only buy 20 tons of lime from me the Government will pay half the price of the lime, and if I come and spread it they will also pay me for spreading it." We cannot go on along those lines because, clearly, it is possible for some of that lime to be wasted. The time should now have arrived when every farmer knows the value of lime and when his fields require it. If he does not he should go to the Agricultural Advisory Service and get them, not the lime merchant, to assist him.
It is a good thing to remove some of these subsidies and for the Government, when they are removed, to take into account, when prices are being fixed in February, the over-all selling price of cattle and crops.

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member is pursuing a false hare. The argument here is not whether or not a subsidy should be taken into account in every price review, because that has already been done for the coming year, but whether those people who were not able to take advantage of the subsidy by the date the subsidy expired should be given an extension. That is the issue. I quite agree that there is a good deal of point in the argument the hon. Member has put forward in relation to the situation as it was before the last February Price Review, but let him not forget that some people have had the advantage of that, and we are trying to protect some who have not been able to have that advantage because of the weather.

Mr. Dye: I have no false hair, and I am not pursuing a false hare. But as for saying that the weather has prevented


some farmers from having their lime delivered, but has enabled others to have theirs delivered and that the latter will, therefore, get a subsidy, that will happen whatever the date may be at which the line is drawn.
But who will get much advantage this year out of liming his land? Practical farmers—and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know more about this the further he continues in his farming operations—know that liming is a long-term operation and that if their land is deficient of lime this year's crops will benefit very little if time is wasted in applying lime. Indeed, one will eventually lose in respect of one's crop in a year like this when speed in getting the land cultivated and the crops sown is essential.
Therefore, I do not admit that there would be any advantage to farming now if this Order were withdrawn, and if more lime was delivered on to the farms and spread this year. I have had a good deal of experience of spreading lime. I have done it myself and have done so when very few others in the district did so. I have found that the best time in the interests of the farmer, is to get lime in the summer or early autumn. That is the time when one gets more lime and less moisture, and when it is more easily spread on the land and mixed in the soil.
All those who have had a great deal of experience knows that is true. To deliver wet lime and try to mix it with wet soil does no good to the land. The lime cakes like putty and can be ploughed up many years afterwards, having been of no advantage to any crops that have succeeded its application. To take full advantage of lime one needs it as dry as possible and under dry conditions, and to spread it as evenly as possible over the areas which are deficient in lime.
From a practical point of view, I can see nothing whatever to be gained by the farming community through the postponing of this Order. That being so, I fully support the Government's policy of reducing the number of direct subsidies which are provided as a kind of incentive to do something which ought to be done in the interests of good farming. Farmers should now be able to face up to this, and make full use of the agricultural advisory Service in treating their fields

requiring lime. That should be the basis on which all this kind of work is done.
I hope that we shall pursue a policy which the Minister announced some time ago—I have forgotten the exact date; it might be three months ago—when this spreading subsidy was terminated. Ample notice was given, and it does not seem to me to matter what month it was, because there will be some who got in before the end of the preceding month and some who were left out. I think it fair to take a particular date, and as the date was indicated some time ago I think the Order might stand.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Fort: The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), comes from a very fortunate farming part of this country if he can look forward to long periods of summer weather dry enough to be able to spread his lime. He does not have to battle with the caggy, heavy conditions which, as the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) knows well, is the frequent misfortune of our farmers in Lancashire.
Looking at the schedule supplied by the Agricultural Lime Department, it seemed to me that Norfolk had a very much lower requirement of lime per hundred acres—or on any other basis which hon. Members like to choose—than the lime-poor soil of Lancashire, where, along with the West Riding, we have the largest estimated lime requirement of any part of England. Indeed, it was because of the lime deficiency of much of Lancashire's soil that the whole scheme of subsidies for liming originated with the Lancashire branch of the National Farmers' Union, resulting in the first lime land fertility scheme of 1937. For that reason I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of speaking this evening as one of the Lancashire Members who should certainly be concerned with the application of lime to our land.
Since that scheme started, Lancashire farmers have taken the fullest possible advantage of it when the season allowed. In the 12 months ending 31st March, 1950, they had the heaviest application of lime of any county in England other than in the West Riding, where the geological and climatic conditions are similar to those in East Lancashire. The result of taking advantage of the subsidies for


lime and lime spreading has been, as I think all concerned with Lancashire farming will agree, an extraordinary improvement in our pastures and in the general condition of grass, on which depends the milk production. This is far and away the most important of the agricultural products in East Lancashire. The past appalling winter started with us early in November and has continued until, I was about to say almost this very day—but certainly until last week-end when I was travelling round my constituency during a blizzard. As a result, the spreading of lime has fallen from an average of 18,000 tons for the first two months of 1950 to an average of 13,300 tons in the first two months of 1951, the last date for which I have comparable figures.
It is by choosing these examples from various parts of England that we may be able to bring home to the Parliamentary Secretary the need for another Order so that for another two months our farmers can enjoy the spreading subsidy and get lime spread on the ground where, on many of the farms I know, it has been ever since last autumn. Despite what the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, says about his part of the world, it would still benefit much of our high grassland if we could get the lime spread even as late as this.

Mr. Dye: Surely the Order provides for the lime to be delivered on to the farms by the end of March. If it is already on the farms, it could be spread later. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that it was on the farms. Surely, that is possible under this Order?

Mr. Fort: I am sorry if I misled the hon. Gentleman. Of course, he is right. Where it is already on the ground, the farmer will get the subsidy. But as he will know, or as his hon. Friend the Member for Chorley could tell him, it has been impossible to get the lime up to many of the hill farms, because of the early winter which closed in at the beginning of November. It is to enable the lime to be delivered there now for spreading that I support the request that this subsidy should be enjoyed for another two months.
It is an important subsidy, especially for small farmers. I am always in favour of subsidies which help to bring our land into better heart and to keep

it in a good state of cultivation. The cost of spreading lime in my part of the country is about 5s. per ton. For proper and regular liming of our lime-deficient soils in East Lancashire, probably about 30 cwt. an acre would be needed. It would not be unfair to say that on the average farm of about 40 acres it would cost the farmer an extra £12 or so if he had to pay the full cost of spreading in this difficult year. It is for these reasons that I support the request of my hon. Friends that farmers should have another two months in which to enjoy this subsidy.

8.59 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): We have had an interesting and not too short discussion, and I hope that the House will agree that it will be convenient if I now give the reasons which led the Government to take this course. Then, perhaps, we might be able to come to a decision. There has been a good deal of lack of perspective in much of the argument we have heard tonight. It is important to remember, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), that this spreading subsidy is a recent innovation and that it is a small part of the whole of the lime subsidy.
There is no intention of taking off either the whole of the lime subsidy, or indeed the major part of it. I hope to show that the Estimates of my Department this year provide for as much to be spent on the lime subsidy in this year as has ever been spent before. Indeed, that total has only been reached once before and that was in a particularly good year. We are not reducing in the Estimates the total provision for this matter. What we are doing is to limit the provision to a figure of about six million tons and not to allow it to rise thereafter.
The basic reason for that has not been touched on at all. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are able to play a very amusing Parliamentary game. I do not complain of it; I have no doubt that one day I may be able to play it myself—not in the near future, but some day. What they are able to do is to play the very amusing game of demanding one thing one week through one set of players and putting in a different team the following week in order to demand the opposite. We spent


the whole of last week, with a different set of speakers for the Opposition, urging on the Government that they ought to be saving rather more money than they are doing now, and that they ought to be spending less. It will be within the memory of the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) declared that, though we were saving £130 million, we might very well save another £50 million on top of it.
It is not mere perverseness on the part of the Ministry or the fact that the Minister does not know about the weather, but it is a fact that some economies in Government expenditure must be made by all Government Departments in order to deal with the problem of re-armament and so on. The Ministry of Agriculture, like all the others, has to make economies, and it is because of the importance which my right hon. Friend attaches to agriculture that the economy has been made in this way.

Mr. Snadden: Surely we do not want to economise at the expense of people who, through no fault of their own, happen to be in particularly wet parts of the country?

Mr. Brown: I am coming to that, but the whole point is that one does not want to economise at the expense of anybody. It would have been much more to the point if the hon. Gentleman had drawn that fact to the attention of his Front Bench during the Budget debates, when they alleged that we could have made very many more economies than we have done, and in which they said that those economies we have made did not amount to very much.
What we have tried to do this year is to look at everything and try to pick out the least depressing of all the directions in which we could economise, and we came to the conclusion, having regard to all the circumstances and after having discussed the matter with Bedford Square—the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) did not appreciate how close 55, Whitehall and Bedford Square can be on occasions, and I had it put to me that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish which is which—after discussing this matter with everybody concerned, we came to the conclusion that to remove the spreading subsidy was perhaps the

least troublesome—I do not mean in an administrative sense, but in terms of agricultural production and policy—way to do it, and we were fortified, as we so often are, by the words of the hon. Member for Newbury.
When I cannot find the hon. Member for Newbury to support me, I can often find the Agricultural Correspondent of "The Times." and, in this case, since I cannot find the Agricultural Correspondent of "The Times" as being on record in any useful way, I naturally turn to the hon. Member for Newbury. In HANSARD of 9th February, 1949, the hon. Gentleman delivered himself of a speech on subsidies thus:
I would say to the Minister that while subsidies may he justified in order to get farmers to change their ways quickly to meet the needs of the times, the period of such subsidies should be strictly limited. Needs do change…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 409.]
and so on. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say that the price structure must be kept right, and that this would call for a good deal of co-operation between the Ministers. Earlier in the same speech, he made the same point:
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will set a time limit to the subsidies…When the Minister has once given the first impetus, the price that the farmer will get for his milk or meat should be right to give him the incentive to grow the right crops…in the right way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 406.]
That was a very excellent speech. The only regret I have is that the hon. Gentleman did not make the same speech tonight and that he so obviously forgot what he said on that occasion.

Mr. Hurd: Surely if there is a time limit for bringing a subsidy to an end, some regard should be had to the circumstances of the moment? That is our point.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is, on the whole, not making a bad recovery, but there he is on record, and, fortified as we were by the speech of the hon. Gentleman, we thought, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Southwest, so clearly said, that in this respect we had introduced in 1947 a specific and additional incentive to persuade farmers to do what it is in their own clear interest to do, to lime their land, to make up for


the past deficiency of lime, and to maintain the current nutrient that is being taken out of the land.
But, having had four years of this special additional subsidy, we felt that we were probably meeting the dictum of the hon. Member for Newbury by assuming that it had done its job, and that we could revert to the pre-1947 position. That is, in fact, what we are doing, and we are doing it for the reason that some economies in Government expenditure have to be found, as we were told by the Opposition. This is a very modest economy and is not a large part of the total sum spent on agricultural subsidies.

Mr. Turton: Will the hon. Gentleman explain exactly what he means, because when the Minister announced the subsidy he said it was not an economy, but that it would be fully taken into account in the February Price Review?

Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend is not too far away from me at the moment, so the hon. Gentleman must be very careful not to get me into any difficulties.
There is nothing different in what I am saying from what my right hon. Friend then said. It is an economy in Government expenditure. It reduces the total amount of our Vote this year. It became one of the items to be taken into account in the general February Price Review settlement, which is what the hon. Member for Newbury obviously thought it ought to be. Therefore, we have carried out not only the whole of our own undertaking, but have followed very courageously, I should have thought, on this occasion the general request made to us by hon. Gentlemen opposite that that was what we should do.
I repeat that it is not the major part of the subsidy. Let us get it into perspective, and I will talk about the details later. If, for example, a farmer has an order for 20 tons of lime, how will he be affected if he had it delivered before 1st April and how will he be affected, if he had it delivered after that date? On the figures I have been able to get, if he had it delivered before 1st April, he will get a subsidy of something like £20. On the other hand, if he had it delivered after 1st April, he will get a subsidy of something of the order of £17, so that the difference in subsidy on an order of

20 tons of lime will be in the region of £3.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it costs only £3 to spread 20 tons of lime?

Mr. Brown: I almost despair of the hon. Gentleman. No, what I am suggesting is that half of £6 is £3. We are only subsidising half of it instead of the whole lot. Therefore, if we get the thing into perspective, it is not so enormous, and, quite frankly, will not have the discouraging effect that has been suggested.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) gave some figures. I have no later figures, and I am sorry that those which he thought would be out on 16th March are not yet available. I can assure the House that there is nothing sinister about that. I have made inquiries and am told that it so happens that March being the end of the financial year, the staff engaged on producing these statistics are under particularly heavy pressure at this time of the year. Therefore, I do not know that his figures are wrong, but, quite frankly, I do not think it is true to say that the cancelling of contracts at this moment has anything to do with people being frightened off from applying lime.
What has happened, I think, is that contracts have been made on one set of prices and on one set of issues which have changed, and that the contracts have been broken. But I have no doubt that they will be mended, as my hon. Friend said, at new prices which take account of the new circumstances.
I do not doubt that that is in fact what will happen. If one looks at the figures over the years, that is probably borne out. There has been a very considerable increase in the subsidy steadily over the years from 1937–38, when it began, until last year, 1950–51. Each year the subsidy has been about one-sixth of the total cost—in fact, somewhat less than that. I see no reason to think from these figures that there has been any tremendous increase by virtue of paying for the spreading. The sum has mounted through the years from £500,000 in its first year to £800,000 and £900,000 in subsequent years, then to more than £1 million, more than £2 million and more than £3 million, with a slight drop towards the end of the war. After that it went on to £5 million


in 1948–49 and £6 million in 1949–50—a good year for spreading—with a slight drop last year to £5½ million.
There has been a steady progression all the way. There has been nothing special about the lime-spreading year. I have not the slightest doubt that this is proving to be one of the very best subsidies—that is, the general lime subsidy. It does not give an immediate financial return but is designed to improve the land. It pays enormous dividends to the farmer in terms of crops and I have no doubt it will go on doing so in much the same way even with the spreading content of the subsidy withdrawn.
Had we gone on paying the spreading subsidy as well as the general subsidy, it is reasonable to assume we would have reached something of the order of £7 million as Government expenditure this year. We are limiting it to £6 million and that will allow for something like 6 million tons to be applied this year and to draw the subsidy. We think, on the whole, that is a reasonable provision to make and there is no reason to think it will not be achieved.
Given that we have to make some economy in our own Departmental expenditure, there are only two ways of doing it. One is to withdraw the spreading subsidy and the other is to reduce the general subsidy slightly—to reduce the rate of subsidy over the whole field. We went into it very carefully and, after consulting the National Farmers' Union, came to the conclusion that the balance was clearly in favour of withdrawing the spreading subsidy and leaving the 50 per cent. as it was. We came to that conclusion for the reason that whereas the subsidy on lime, that is, on acquiring and transporting it to the farm, is 50 per cent. of the farmer's individual cost, the spreading subsidy is not. Although it is roughly 50 per cent. of the total cost, so far as any one farmer is concerned it may not be one half of his individual cost. It is a flat scale. That meant that the farmers who were farthest away, and had to get their lime spread in the most costly way, in fact had less out of this than other people.
If we remove the spreading contribution, it costs in England something like 6s. 6d. a ton to the farmer through the loss of his subsidy; in Wales it costs

6s. 3d., in Scotland 7s. and in Northern Ireland 6s. 4d. If we had not done that but had reduced the general subsidy from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent. over the whole field, it would have cost the English farmer 6s., the Welsh farmer 6s. 11d., the Scottish farmer 9s. 7d., and the Northern Irish man 8s. 4d. We have chosen the method of doing this which confers, incidentally, the greatest benefit on the Scottish farmer and, more important, the greatest benefit on the man who is in the most awkward position and who, as the hon. Member for West Perth put it, probably has the greatest difficulties.
In another discussion on subsidies we heard a lot about rough justice. We were told by the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale) how much more rough it was than just. I think the same thing applies to the lime spreading subsidy, and I confidently look forward to having him on my side tonight. This was a form of rough justice. In fact, some people got a good deal more out of it than was intended. Others got rather less out of it. If we had to make some provision to pay for re-armament, this seemed a very reasonable place to do so without making very much difference at all to the total amount of money we shall have to pay.
So far as the timing is concerned, I do not make too much of this. Good notice was given and in no sense was it done at the last minute. We are covering deliveries on to the farm where they were made before 1st April, even though the spreading was done afterwards. So far as increased farmers' costs are concerned, we have tried to do the job properly by taking that into account as one of the factors in the general farm review.
I would remind hon. Members of another point which has not been taken into account by them. Spreading on farms under the hill farming schemes and the marginal production schemes will still qualify for grants. Some hon. Members have suggested that this Order will affect the very land we want most to develop—the hill land and the marginal land lower down the hills. The answer is that it will not affect them because they are already covered under other schemes.
I do not think I need say more. We are making provision this year for more lime than has ever been put on the land in any year except in that one very


favourable year. We are making provision to spend more money than we have ever spent on the lime subsidy, except in that one very favourable year. It cannot be said, therefore, that we are reducing the State's contribution to liming. We are not. In fact, we shall increase it very considerably over last year if the farmers will put the lime on the land. Having regard to the history of this subsidy and to the fact that we know a good deal about the value of liming, I ask the House not to press this Motion.

9.17 p.m.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I should like to point out that the Parliamentary Secretary has devoted his speech to defending the Order, whereas my hon. Friends are objecting not to the Order as such but to its timing. It may well be—I hope it will be—that during the time the younger Members are in the House, and before they retire in many years' time, it will be possible to amend this procedure. At the moment we have to vote against an Order so that some amendment can be made. That has been an unsatisfactory method of dealing with matters and obviously it is becoming more unsatisfactory as time goes by.
The whole point of my hon. Friends' speeches this evening was that the Minister has forgotten the exceptional

weather we have had—that he did not foresee that a great deal of the lime which should have been spread before 31st March could not be spread on the land by that date because of the weather conditions. That is the whole gravamen of the charge.

Mr. G. Brown: If I did not deal with that point, I apologise. I did make the point that if we had chosen any other date we should not have achieved the saving we want to achieve, and by not making the saving on this scheme we should have had to find the balance of it from something in which we judged the agricultural values were rather higher. We chose this scheme because we thought it would do the least agricultural damage.

Sir T. Dugdale: I cannot accept that. If the weather had been fair we should have had lime on the land before 31st March. The only reason we did not was because the weather was foul. We maintain that the Minister could have come to the House and reversed the Order, could have revoked the scheme and have brought in another Order so as to delay the operation of this scheme for two months. That is all we ask and all we intend in raising the subject in this debate.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 258: Noes, 267.

Division No. 75.]
AYES
[9.20 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Channon, H.
Eccles, D. M.


Alport, C. J. M
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Erroll, F. J.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Clyde, J. L.
Fisher, Nigel


Arbuthnot, John
Colegate, A.
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Fort, R.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)
Foster, John


Astor, Hon. M. L.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Baker, P. A. D.
Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Cranborne, Viscount
Fyfe, fit. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Baldwin, A. E.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Gage, C. H.


Banks, Col. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Ball, R. M.
Crouch, R. F.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Gates, Maj. E. E.


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Cundiff, F. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Black, C. W.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Darting, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bossom, A. C.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, Robert (Westbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Harden, J. R. E


Boyle, Sir Edward
de Chair, Somerset
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Deedes, W. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Braine, B. R.
Digby, S. W.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr Gurney
Dormer, P. W.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Drayson, G. B.
Hay, John


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Drewe, C.
Head, Brig. A. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Heald, Lionel


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.
Dunglass, Lord
Heath, Edward


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Duthie, W. S.
Henderson, John (Catheart)




Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maclay, Hon. John
Scott, Donald


Higgs, J. M. C.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Shepherd, William


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hirst, Geoffrey
MacPherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hollis, M. C.
Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hope, Lord John
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Snadden, W. McN.


Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Marples, A. E.
Soames, Capt. C.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Maudling, R.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)
Mellor, Sir John
Stevens, G. P.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Monckton, Sir Walter
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Storey, S.


Hutchison, Colonel James (Glasgow)
Nabarro, G.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nicholls, Harmar
Studholme, H. G.


Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Nicholson, G.
Summers, G. S.


Jeffreys, General Sir George
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Sutcliffe, H.


Jennings, R.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nutting, Anthony
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Oakshott, H. D.
Teeling, W.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Odey, G. W.
Teevan, T. L.


Kaberry, D.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh Walton)


Keeling, E. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Orr, Capt, L. P. S.
Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Osborne, C.
Tilney, John


Langford-Holt, J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Touche, G. C.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pickthorn, K.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lindsay, Martin
Pitman, I. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Linstead, H. N.
Powell, J. Enoch
Vosper, D. F.


Llewellyn, D.
Prescott, S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Profumo, J. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Raikes, H. V.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Redmayne, M.
Watkinson, H.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)
While, Baker (Canterbury)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Robson-Brown, W
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


McAdden, S. J.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


McCallum, Major D.
Roper, Sir Harold
Wills, G.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Ropner, Col. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Russell, R. S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Salter Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
York, C.


McKibbin, A.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.



McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Savory, Prof D. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Turton and Mr. Hurd.




NOES


Albu, A. H.
Burke, W. A.
Deer, G.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Burton, Miss E.
Delargy, H. J.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Diamond, J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Carmichael, J.
Dodds, N. N.


Awbery, S. S.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Donnelly, D.


Ayles, W. H.
Champion, A. J.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Balfour, A.
Clunie, J.
Dye, S.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Cocks, F. S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bartley, P.
Coldrick, W.
Edelman, M.


Bonn, Wedgwood
Collick, P.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Benson, G.
Collindridge, F.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Beswick, F.
Cook, T. F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Blenkinsop, A.
Cooper, John (Deptford)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Blyton, W. R.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ewart, R.


Boardman, H.
Crawley, A.
Fairhurst, F.


Booth, A.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Fernyhough, E


Bowden, H. W.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Finch, H. J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Foot, M. M.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Forman, J. C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Brown, George (Belper)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Freeman, John (Watford)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Ganley, Mrs C. S.







Gibson, C. W.
Logan, D. G.
Royle, C


Gilzean, A.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Glanville, James (Consett)
MacColl, J. E.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon Sir Hartley


Gooch, E. G.
McGhee, H. G.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McGovern, J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
McInnes, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Grenfell, D. R.
Mack, J. D.
Simmons, C. J.


Grey, C. F.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, J.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McLeavy, F.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Snow, J. W.


Gunter, R. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sorensen, R. W.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steels, T.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Strachey, Rt. Hon J


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Manuel, A. C.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hamilton, W. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon Ednr


Hannan, W.
Mellish, R. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hardman, D. R.
Messer, F.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hardy, E. A.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)


Hargreaves, A.
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Harrison, J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hastings, S.
Moeran, E. W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hayman, F. H.
Monslow, W.
Thomas, Ivor Cwen (Wrekin)


Herbison, Miss M
Moody, A. S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morgan, Dr H. B.
Timmons, J.


Hobson, C. R.
Morley, R.
Tomlinson, Rt Hon. G.


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Tomney, F.


Houghton, D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, S.)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hoy, J.
Mort, D. L.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.


Hubbard, T.
Moyle, A.
Usborne, H.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Mulley, F. W.
Vernon, W. F.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mulvey, A.
Viant, S. P.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, J. T.
Wallace, H. W.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Nally, W.
Watkins, T. E.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Oldfield, W. H.
Weitzman, D.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Janner, B.
Padley, W. E.
West, D. G.


Jay, D. P. T
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pannell, T. C.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Paton, J.
Whileley, Rt. Hon. W


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Peart, T. F.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Poole, C.
Wilkes, L.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Popplewell, E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Porter, G.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Keenan, W.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Kenyon, C.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, David (Neath)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


King, Dr. H. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.
Rankin, J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don Valley)


Kinley, J.
Rees, Mrs. D.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Lang, Gordon
Reeves, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)



Raid, Thomas (Swindon)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rhodes, H.
Wise, F. J.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Richards, H.
Woodburn, Rt, Hon. A.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wyatt, W. L.


Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Yates, V. F.


Lindgren, G. S.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)



Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CARPET INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: I rise tonight with some diffidence to call the attention of the House to a number of the current problems in one of our smaller but most important industries, the carpet industry which, as hon. Members will know, is for the most part centred in the relatively small Worcestershire town of Kidderminster. I am glad to see in their places the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, Eastern (Major G. Lloyd), and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who have smaller carpet interests in their respective constituencies. Something of the order of 37½ per cent. of the carpet industry is in Kidderminster, and the balance is to be found in various Yorkshire towns, and in Scotland.
Before I deal with the problems of the industry I would like to sketch a few of the facts forming its background. It has had a peculiar history during the past decade because it was one of the only industries in Britain which was completely shut down between 1940 and 1945, when carpet factories were switched over to small-arms and sundry engineering production in connection with the war effort.
The process of reconstruction from 1946 was thus a particularly difficult one. In 1946, the industry was one of the first in Britain to receive the attention of a working party. The working party consisted partly of trade unionists, partly of employers and of a number of independent persons. In giving a very brief summary of its findings, I cannot do better than quote a paragraph on page 13 in Section II, the "Technical Review." It says:
Carpet manufacturing is a highly developed mass production industry. The factories in general are adequately equipped and managements are watchful about introducing improvements in the mechanical devices they employ.
Since 1946 there has, of course, been a considerable technical advance.
I mentioned that the industry is a relatively small one. The number employed in it today throughout the whole country is only 28,700, compared with

a pre-war figure of 32,000. This shows a decline in manpower of about 13½ per cent., but, notwithstanding that decline, there has been an overall increase in productivity since pre-war, and the industry is now turning out some 3 per cent. more carpets in square yardage than in 1939. The importance of the industry to the export trade cannot be over-emphasised. In 1949, Great Britain's carpet exports amounted to £10,300,000, in 1950 the figure rose to £15,200,000, and the published figures for the first two months of 1951 show an export out-turn of £3,267,000, indicating that the rate for the full year will reach nearly £20 million, or an increase of no less than 100 per cent. upon the figure for 1949.
It is not unfair to say that the carpet industry is a model for joint consultative organisation. It is one of the few industries in Britain which has a joint advisory council, made up of six trade unionists and six employers with an independent chairman, to deal with general problems, and a joint industrial council to deal with wages. Both the trade union side of the industry and the employers side are highly organised.
The principal concern, today, of the overwhelming majority of the men and women in the country is the inordinately high prices that carpets have reached. It is no exaggeration to say that the comfort and well-being of all our people are contributed to very largely by carpets in their homes. I hope to see, in the course of the next 10 or 15 years, carpets appearing in every new house erected in Great Britain. But today, when people learn that I am associated with Kidderminster, I hear complaints on all sides about the very high prices of carpets, and inquiries about what measures can be devised to bring them more within the reach of the ordinary wage earner.
It is difficult to compare pre-war prices with post-war prices in view of the number of variable factors which affect both. The easiest way to do is to relate wages earned pre-war and post-war to the price of a carpet. I can most easily do that by comparing how much, in terms of carpets, the wages of a carpet weaver would buy in 1939 and now. In 1939 the average male carpet weaver earned £5 a week for a standard working week.

Mr. Tomney: Is that for a male employee?

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman should know that there were no female carpet weavers earning that wage in the industry, in 1939.

Mr. Jack Jones: There were.

Mr. Nabarro: The skilled male carpet weaver, earned, in 1939, £5 a week, and it was always boasted in pre-war days that his one week's wages would buy a 12 ft × 9 ft. Axminster A.2 carpet, which, in those days, cost, on an average, very slightly less than £5. Today, the carpet weaver earns approximately £8 10s. per week. The same carpet that cost £4 19s. in 1939 now costs no less than £24 16s., which represents three weeks' wages of a carpet weaver.
Perhaps I might usefully quote a statement made by the Secretary of the Carpet Weavers' Union, Mr. C. Yarsley, when recently, he attended and waited upon the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in connection with the incidence of Purchase Tax on carpets, for this illustrates my point about the very high prices that carpets have now reached. Mr. Yarsley stated that it appeared that the worker was condemned for all time to the use of linoleum or coconut matting. He considered that in relation to the better housing and other conditions which the worker now enjoyed he should not be debarred from buying a carpet because its price placed it beyond the reach of his pocket. He considered that a small industry such as the carpet industry was being asked to do too much by contributing such large sums to the Treasury by way of Purchase Tax.
Mr. Yarsley continued by stating that he knew the difficulty manufacturers were experiencing on the question of finance, and that employees were anxious in that any restriction of trade would lead directly to unemployment. In the case of Kidderminster there was no other industry that could absorb any redundancy of labour if unemployment were on any substantial scale.
That is the measure of the problem today and, of course, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) has been interjecting impatiently for the past few moments, this difficulty arises very largely from the precipitous rise in the cost of raw materials during the last three years. The carpet industry is peculiar in this

respect. Today, 80 per cent. of the cost of a carpet is made up of raw materials. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wool."] That means that a carpet has what the President of the Board of Trade referred to in his speech on the Budget as a low conversion value. Eighty per cent. is raw materials; only 20 per cent. is the cost of the labour and of the overheads and gross profit margin which go into the manufacture of the carpet. That is an extreme case of low conversion value in a manufactured commodity. At the other end of the scale, in the engineering industry, it is not unknown for a finished product to have only a 10 per cent. raw material content.
I stress this point because it means that whenever any substantial alteration in the price of wool or cotton or jute—the three constituent raw materials in a carpet—takes place, then the controlled carpet price arrangements of the Board of Trade are immediately thrown out of gear-Wool is now standing at 16 times the pre-war price. It is standing at approximately six times the 1947 price.

Mr. Jack Jones: On a free market.

Mr. Nabarro: I could spend the next two hours arguing the merits and demerits of an international free market for wool, but the subject this evening is the problems of the carpet industry, which certainly spring from wool. I must say to the hon. Member for Rotherham, who is constantly interrupting me, that I have no desire to be controversial about this matter. So far I have only been stating the facts of the case, as can be readily checked by all the available statistics.
On 1st March, 1951, that is six weeks ago, the President of the Board of Trade remarked in reply to one of my Parliamentary Questions that wool was standing at five to six times the 1st January, 1947, price, jute was standing at 2⅓ times the 1st January, 1947, price, and cotton was standing at 3⅔ the 1st January, 1947, price. Those three constituents together—and in consideration of the fact that the cost of a carpet comprises 80 per cent. raw materials—mean that prices have been forced inordinately high.
There is no immediate remedy for this situation. I am not expecting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade


to be able to respond this evening with a solution to the problem. I am merely drawing attention to it and making a comment upon the hon. Gentleman's price control arrangements. There have been seven advances in the controlled price of carpets since 1st January, 1947. Every time a price advance has taken place, events have overtaken the new prices. The Parliamentary Secretary will recall, for instance, that the last price advance for carpets took place on 5th March, 1951. That price was based upon woollen yarn at 158d. per lb. By the time the carpet price increase had been promulgated it was found that carpet wool had risen to 200d. per lb., so that the negotiating—

Mr. Dryden Brook: Mr. Dryden Brook (Halifax) indicated dissent.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is shaking his head. Does he wish to contradict me?

Mr. Brook: I have spent the whole of my life in the buying and selling of raw wool, including that for the carpet industry. I accept the hon. Member's figures as to the relative increase in the price of wool for the carpet industry, but carpet wools have not reached 200d. per lb., in general, up to now.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Member and will quote him the figures extracted from a carpet manufacturer's accounts in Kidderminster:
January, 1948; Carpet Woollen Yarn 54d. per lb.
1st July, 1950: 90d. per lb.
1st January, 1951: 152d. per lb.
1st February, 1951; 162d. per lb.
1st March, 1951: 178d. per lb.
31st March, 1951: 201d. per lb.

Mr. Brook: Mr. Brook rose—

Mr. Nabarro: Let me continue. I telephoned a member of the Wool Exchange this morning to ascertain the level of prices for carpet wool at yesterday's biddings in the market at Liverpool. Mercifully, prices have declined by approximately 20 per cent. during the last 10 to 14 days, and appear to be settling at this lower level.
I was dealing, when I was interrupted, with the question of the price control arrangements. My plea to the Parliamentary Secretary is simply that he

should recognise that events always overtake the Board of Trade. The negotiations for new prices always appear to take too long. The Board of Trade plead that they must allow a certain period for stocks bought at the lower prices to be consumed, but, unfortunately, stocks are not by any means even in every firm in the industry; considerable hardship has been imposed on many firms whose stocks are exhausted and who have to replace those stocks at higher prices before the new carpet controlled prices come into effect. Thus, substantial losses are inevitably incurred.
A cost investigation of the whole industry is now proceeding. I hope that it may be completed at the earliest possible moment and that the whole machinery for settling controlled prices of carpets, whether up or down—I hope that the next new settlement will be down, in the interests of the consuming public—can be considerably speeded up.
I pass now to an entirely different field: the question of carpets that are imported into Britain. I will always be a keen supporter of the greatest possible measure of competitive enterprise, provided that circumstances, terms and conditions of competition are fair and equitable. I believe that, in the case of Indian imported carpets, however, the conditions are extremely unfair and inequitable, for two important reasons.
First, Indian carpets coming into the United Kingdom do so on an open general licence without a tariff, that is without payment of import duty, and the imports of these carpets and rugs from India have been increasing very considerably in the last few years, For instance, in the calendar year 1950 the volume of imports was £2,949,000. In January, 1951, the latest published figure of imports of Indian carpets and rugs was £457,000. That was in one month and in a full year, calculated pro rata, it would be no less than £5,484,000, an increase of 86 per cent. in the rate of imports for 1951 over 1950, and 1950 represented a rate of increase of 66 per cent. over the preceding year.
While Indian carpets and rugs come into the United Kingdom duty free British carpets going into India—and we have an interest in that market—are subject to an ad valorem import duty


of 31¼ per cent., which includes a preferential tariff of 12½ per cent. under the most favoured nation clause. In other words, the normal import duty for carpets going into India is 43¾ per cent. from which is deducted the preferential tariff, reducing the percentage to 31¼ per cent. Moreover, the Pakistan imports are considerable into the United Kingdom and come in duty free. Our British carpets are now subject to an average import duty of 45 per cent. into Pakistan, the preferential tariff of 12½ per cent. having been removed by the Anglo-Pakistan Trade Agreement of 2nd April, 1951.
Therefore, there is a thoroughly inequitable tariff position. Why should we not have some reciprocity in this matter? My second plea to the Parliamentary Secretary—and I know it is a difficult problem—is to ask him to endeavour to commence administrative action and negotiations to secure that reciprocity. The position is doubly confounded, from the point of view of the British manufacturer, because not only has he these tariffs against him, but also the Indians have decided to put export duties on two of the essential raw materials which the British carpet manufacturer requires for his carpets. There is an export duty of 30 per cent. on East Indian wool and 30 per cent. to 35 per cent. on jute and jute yarn, all of which are bought in considerable quantities by the British carpet manufacturer; thereby twice confounded. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to endeavour to help the British carpet manufacturer in this respect.
I should also make some passing reference to an aspect of the question which, I believe, Government Departments are losing sight of today. Any member of the consuming public may buy furniture, mattresses, or furnishing fabrics without paying Purchase Tax, but, in the case of carpets every one sold in the United Kingdom is subject to Purchase Tax at 33⅓ per cent., which immediately places carpets in the luxury group. As my trade union leader friend, Mr. Yarsley of the Carpet Weavers' Union in Kidderminster said, this is one of the potent factors in raising the price of carpets so high that they are beyond the purse and paying capacity of the ordinary middle and lower wage earners groups in Britain.
I hope that none will deny that carpets are essential to the comfort and well-being of the community. I ask hon. Members to contemplate the harsh and bare conditions we would suffer in this Chamber if the architects had decided that we should have polished oak boarding for the floor. I have constantly deplored the fact that the products of the most famous carpet manufacturing town in the world, Kidderminster, are not represented in this Chamber and that the whole of the carpets in this Chamber were bought from a firm in Glasgow. There is undoubtedly a case for the reduction or elimination of Purchase Tax, and while I should be out of order in pursuing that point now I hope to return to it on the forthcoming Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
Hon. Members will know that we have succeeded in the last four years in sending to the U.S.A. many important productivity teams which have profitably examined American methods of manufacture. The carpet industry in America is, like ours, well organised. Its rate of production per man-year is certainly slightly higher than ours, due largely to the degree of standardisation and wide looms in America, and the fact that they do not concentrate on design, colour and quality to the same extent that we do in the United Kingdom. Productivity teams have gone to America representing the iron and steel industry, the hosiery and knitwear industry, the carton and box-making industry, the drop-forging industry and many others.
There appears to have been some resistance either on the part of the Anglo-American Productivity Council or from some unknown source to sending a productivity team for the carpet industry to the United States. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary has some prior knowledge of this matter, and I should like him to tell me, if he can, when he replies, what is the impediment in this matter, and whether it is the policy of the Board of Trade to encourage the sending of such a productivity team to the United States.
I should like, briefly, to summarise the four commendations I make to the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with this industry. First, there should be a speeding up of the whole machinery for negotiating, within the price control structure, price revisions of the Board of Trade,


whether up or down, if such price revisions become necessary in the future, and the cost investigation of the industry which is being conducted should be expedited and its findings published at the earliest possible moment. Second, there should be a measure of reciprocity as between Indian and British carpets and immediate negotiations with the Indians to try to persuade them to relinquish their iniquitous habit of placing an export tax on raw materials which come to this country when we do not see the same principle in respect of the export goods that we send to India. Third, there should be an investigation of the prospects of a productivity team going to the United States of America. Fourth, there should be a reduction or elimination of the iniquitous Purchase Tax on carpets.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Pryde: The English are said to have a very pretty opinion of themselves and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is no exception. I am sorry to inform the hon. Member that some of his statements are not quite facts because facts are true, and that some of his statements were quite inaccurate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. For example the hon. Member said that there were no skilled women weavers. Scotland is not unknown in the carpet weaving industry. Temple-ton's can hold its own with any unit in the industry. Stirling, Ayr, Dundee and Kilmarnock are not unknown, while in Midlothian we have two firms, Messrs. Henry Widnell and Stewart, and a subsidiary, Stewart Brothers, who are the only tapestry weavers in Scotland. My own sister was one of the skilled women weavers of Henry Widnell and Stewart—

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

Mr. Pryde: It is nonsense to say that we have not skilled women weavers—

Mr. Nabarro: I am very sorry if the hon. Member misunderstood me, or if I was guilty of slipping into error at that point. My point was that the wage I was quoting for 1939 was the wage of a narrow

loom Axminster male weaver. I recognise, of course, that there are skilled female weavers within the industry.

Mr. Pryde: The hon. Member told us that at Kidderminster they were making £5 per week. I am sorry to say that in the town where I stay, and have stayed for over 50 years, the centre of the tapestry weaving industry, such high figures were never attained in the carpet weaving industry. In fact, my late lamented friend the Labour Member for Peebles and South Midlothian and myself had to go to the Ministry of Labour and get a labour exchange put in the town because there was so much unemployment in the weaving industry. In fact, 50s. was more like the average figure for skilled weavers in Eskbank, Bonnyrigg and Roslin. My next-door neighbour was complaining to me quite recently that she would be in a very bad position when her son went to put in his National Service. Hon. Members can judge when I tell them that she told me he was giving her £7 a week. Never before have such wages ruled in the carpet weaving industry in Scotland. Never before has there been such content.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster is correct when he says that the machinery in the industry is of a very high standard indeed. My late agent, Mr. John Keith, has contributed towards bringing the industry to that pitch. The hon. Member complained about the high price of raw material. Of course, raw materials have risen in price. Wool has risen 1,080 per cent. since 1938, but that is no fault of the present Government. It is no fault of the Government that the price of cotton has gone up. By bulk purchase we have proved that, had we not resorted to it, cotton prices would have risen out of all proportion. There is no use hon. Gentlemen complaining about India producing commodities cheaper than we do. It is true to say that the Indian worker can live at a lower standard than workers in the more temperate zones where we operate. The British financier was responsible for financing the industry in India, because he could get a higher rate of profit in India than from the British workers.

Mr. Nabarro: What has that to do with Indian carpets?

Mr. Pryde: The hon. Member has been complaining about competition from


India. Hon. Members opposite believe in competition; then why should they grumble about it?

Mr. Nabarro: Fair competition.

Mr. Pryde: The Indian worker is not complaining. He is trying to do the same as the British worker has done and build up his organisation in order to reach the same high standard of living as the British worker. Our people in Scotland know perfectly well the benefits which a Labour Government has conferred upon them, and I think that nowhere where weaving operations are carried on will they again resort to being represented by a Tory Member of Parliament.

10.5 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I must confess that every time I listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I am more amazed than ever at his knowledge, his competence and his fluency. In fact, it makes it most embarrassing for anyone who has to follow him. That is also true for another definite reason—that there is simply nothing left to say. But, representing as I do one of the most distinguished carpet towns in Scotland, I propose to try to place before the House some of the difficulties from which the industry in Scotland is suffering. I suppose that, as far as this House is concerned, Ayrshire is only noted for its Members of Parliament—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: One of them.

Sir T. Moore: —but to the outside world I would suggest that our county is chiefly noted for its cows, its carpets and its furniture; although, as a matter of fact, Robert Burns claimed, in a fit of local patriotism, that our fame was based on the possession of honourable men and lovely women, or as he put it honest men and bonny lasses, and of course he was no bad judge. But as this debate is about the fascinating craft and great productive industry of carpet-making, I will limit my remarks to that subject.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster advanced many arguments in favour of the town he most efficiently represents, it may truly be said that Kidderminster is probably noted more for the quantity of carpets it produces,

whereas we in Ayr like to think that the world looks to us for quality. I remember that when I was a very young soldier I was walking along the streets of Cape Town when suddenly I saw a most beautiful carpet in a window. I was so tickled at its attractiveness that I went into the shop to look at it. I found that on the back of it were the words, "Made by William C. Gray, of Ayr." That shows how far afield carpets from Ayr travel. Indeed, it may surprise the House to know that today half the world is carpeted by Britain, and the best half of it by Ayr.

Mr. Dryden Brook: No—by Halifax.

Sir T. Moore: This industry is one of those quiet, happy industries, rarely, if ever, troubled by trade disputes, where proprietors, craftsmen and management all co-operate happily together. I suppose this is really due to the fact that carpet making is primarily a craft; and real craftsmanship always demands personal loyalty from the workers. That saves them from the day-to-day troubles of grasping for money, for a higher standard of wages or whatever it may be.
The problem with which we are faced is that, as I have already said, in addition to being a craft, it is a great productive industry, even greater than my hon. Friend appeared to represent it. It is constantly growing and constantly demanding more brains and fresh ingenuity in its development. As an example of the way in which this industry is developing, and can be still further developed, I would point out that the production of carpets for export amounted in 1938 to a value of £2 million only; but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the export value today is something over £15 million so wide has the fame of British carpets spread. The demand is ever-increasing. In a few moments I will give the reason why the demand cannot be met.
In the last year there was, in addition, a home demand for 17 million individual carpets. That is a truly colossal figure. But, and unfortunately there is always a "but," this attractive, exciting, expanding industry, like every other industry, is faced with certain post-war difficulties. I do not say that they are all the fault of the Government, although undoubtedly many of them are. The


trouble about the Government is that they only concern themselves with industries that cause trouble, except in the case of the one outstanding example, the steel industry, which is the exception that proves the rule. The Government are like the parents of naughty children; they are always fonder of the naughtier child. The Government have not yet realised—and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain why—what the carpet industry is fighting against, and, although my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster has specified almost every enemy which it has to face in every part of the world, there are certain points that need to be stressed.
First, practically all the main component parts of carpets have to be imported; that is to say, wool, cotton and jute. The result of that is—and we have seen it especially during the last few weeks and months—an increasing rise, even at times a fantastic rise, in prices, which makes it almost impossible for potential purchasers to contemplate the buying of carpets.
My hon. Friend stressed the fact that many of our young people are hopefully looking forward to getting married and setting up homes of their own, if they can get houses, and one of the best and first things which they would seek is a carpet. Linoleum is cold and expensive, and carpet is warm, but unfortunately still more expensive. As long as there are these difficulties and this fantastic Purchase Tax, which adds still more to the cost to the housewife, so long will the carpet manufacturer himself be in trouble. The Government have failed entirely in their new proposals to provide sufficient restoration allowances for new plant and machinery which is, as the House must know, constantly changing and improving in the industry.
Lastly, there is this competition from India, which comes from carpets made by people suffering from even less food and a much lower standard of life than we have here today, and also from a ridiculous scale of wages unrelated to any trade union system. What is to be done about that? A working party which might go to the United States and India would be useful, and it might try to arrange, first of all, reciprocity with India,

and secondly, advance the fine quality of our manufactures in America.
All this would help, but, if this growing industry and this ancient and honourable craft is to be saved and be developed in the way it should be as a very valuable British industry, both for export sales and home consumption as well, the Government have got to do something about it. It is their responsibility; the carpet manufacturers are doing their best in trying to renovate their machinery and introduce new methods and the craftsmen in the industry are also doing their best. [Interruption.] I will take the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. M. MacPherson) round one of the best carpet works in Ayr and show him the developments that are taking place. He will be amazed at the ingenuity displayed by management and workers alike which can be seen there. However, it is the Government's responsibility, and they must act. We want to hear what they propose to do.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Dryden Brook: Unlike the other hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, I have had a close connection with the carpet industry for the last 50 years. My firm is at present engaged in selling raw wool to the carpet industry, so it will be seen that I have some knowledge of the subject. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who opened the debate, based his comparison as to cost on Axminster carpets. I want to repeat what I have already said, that the wools used in Axminster carpet have not yet reached 200d. per lb.

Mr. Nabarro: Woollen yarn.

Mr. Brook: HANSARD will confirm that the hon. Gentleman never referred to woollen yarn at all.

Mr. Nabarro: I mentioned yarn.

Mr. Brook: I should like to question one or two of the hon. Member's illustrations. When he was talking about the employment in the industry before and after the war, did he take into account the under-employment that existed before the war and the full employment which exists now? Obviously, there would be a good deal of short-time in pre-war days as compared with now. I know that in the first week of the last


Summer Recess we sold carpet wool in the raw state at from 54d. to 60d. a lb. The highest price we have made for similar wool since that time has been in the region of just over 180d. a lb.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the time lag between the rise in the value of raw wool and the Government control of prices. Three weeks ago, a Prayer was moved in this House for the annulment of an Order which had been made to help the interests of the carpet industry regarding prices. On that night I listened and looked very carefully for the hon. Member for Kidderminster, but he was not present. I hoped to hear his voice raised in protest—[An HON. MEMBER: "He was wool gathering."]—against that Prayer. As I say, I listened very carefully for a contribution from the hon. Member, because, as a rule, one does not have to wait very long before hearing his resonant voice. If there was ever an occasion when an hon. Member who was interested in an industry should have been in his place and spoken for that industry, it was that night.
There is another point on which I wish to question him. He claimed that the best carpets in the world were made at Kidderminster. I think it will be universally agreed that the best carpets in the world are still made in Halifax.

10.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): Everybody seems to have been blowing his own trumpet or the trumpet of the particular section of the industry which happens to be where he lives. Perhaps for a few brief seconds I might be allowed to stake a claim in this industry, because it is just 128 years ago that a progenitor of mine, who was a contemporary of Harvey, O'Connor and Fielding, the Chartists of the day, started a hand-loom weavers' union in my district. Fortunately, we still have his account books, and are able to see that in those early days very considerable subscriptions were sent to the Kidderminster weavers. I hope that the good relations that existed then have had something to do with the good relations that exist today.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) mentioned the high prices paid for wool. I think his contentions have been adequately answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook), and I will proceed straight away

to the question he raised about slowness in investigation. If the hon. Member was complaining of the speed at the time when costs were rising, that means that what he was really asking the Board of Trade to do was to impose a further increase on the price of carpets.
As he knows, a cost investigation is being held at the moment. A great many of the returns have come in and we expect to receive a report from our accountants on these returns not later than the middle of next month. How long it will take to get the order out depends upon the speed of the negotiations between the trade and us. I hope they will not be protracted. I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is not possible to make an investigation of this description in a few days or even in a few weeks. Accounts have to be prepared properly by the industry and examined properly by the Board of Trade accountants before we can arrive at a decision.
As to the general need for a price or cost investigation, I think that in view of the high profits made recently in the carpet industry—and the hon. Member for Kidderminster never mentioned this aspect in his consideration of prices—it was only reasonable, and in fact the duty, of the Board of Trade to hold a costs investigation before granting any further price increases. After all, the Board of Trade are the custodians of the consumer as well as the body responsible for the well-being of industry in this country.
To illustrate this, may I say that the profits recently published by four large firms in the carpet industry show an average increase of some 40 per cent. on their 1950 trading over their 1949 trading, while one company's profits show an increase of 92 per cent. Surely we are entitled to say that we must have a cost investigation before any further price increases are made. The hon. Member for Kidderminster mentioned Dominion imports and reciprocity. I agree that in the latter half of 1950 they were increased considerably. Imports from India and Pakistan went up after the introduction of the open general licence list. I have no doubt that that had an influence on the position.
But I must remind the hon. Member for Kidderminster that carpets imported from India represented 6 per cent. only of the total supplies to the home market


in this country in 1950. On the other hand, United Kingdom exports to India have never constituted a large trade. In 1938–39 Indian figures of imports of British carpets amounted in value to no more than £22,500, which in those days was 10 per cent. of India's total imports.
As to tariffs, I am sure if he considers it at all, the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is totally impossible to arrange for complete reciprocity of treatment between a product in one country and a similar product in another. It would be quite impossible to arrange it so that there was an equality, a quid pro quo; and when the Government are negotiating a trade agreement they have to think of trade as a whole. They cannot think of the carpet industry in isolation. The agreement with India is very valuable for both countries and it would be hardly right to upset that agreement now just to protect the United Kingdom industry which is doing very well—it has many orders and there is little stock—against Indian carpets. The hon. Member is quite correct in pointing out that the 12½ per cent. preference which we enjoy is not enjoyed by any other foreign country exporting into India. Turning to Pakistan, there will be an opportunity of discussing this matter on the Finance Bill towards the end of May, when provisions relating to it are to be introduced.

Mr. Garner-Evans: Mr. Garner-Evans (Denbigh) rose—

Mr. Rhodes: I cannot give way. The hon. Member next raised the point of a productivity team going to America. As he knows, this is the job of the Anglo-American Productivity Council; it is not our job. We cannot tell them what to do, but I will say this to the hon. Member: I will bring the points he made

to the notice of the Council. I cannot do any more; I cannot direct. With regard to Purchase Tax, I am afraid this is a field into which I cannot enter, nor do I intend to enter it.
I am greatly obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having raised this topic, because this is a good industry. I visited the firm in Ayrshire to which the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) referred; they were first-class, and they impressed me by the way in which they set about the job of starting the machinery and getting on with the war effort when that was demanded of them. Not only that, but I have been impressed by the way in which they have picked up since and put into their factories the broader looms so that we can sell our goods to the dollar markets.
The debate has given me the opportunity to say how grateful I am, personally, for a recent example of co-operation with the Federation of British Carpet Manufacturers. I saw their representatives personally when they came up here about the last price increases and I asked them to withdraw their rule requiring their members to sell at prices ruling on the day of delivery. I also had reason to ask their members to give an undertaking not to hold up supplies for higher prices at times when price increases were pending. I am grateful to the Federation for the statesmanlike way in which they acted, because almost at once they asked their members to accede to these requests and, as far as I know, they have been carried out loyally by the Federation.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes past Ten o'Clock.